Decomposition of Sequential Behavior UsingInterface Specification and Complementation

Rath, Kamlesh; Choppella, Venkatesh; Johnson, Steven D.

doi:10.1155/1995/74543

“…Parnas's framework, however, assumes that the starting point for decomposition consists of an architectural specification of the system, while our starting point is quite more abstract, as we assume that we are provided with a relational specification. Another related work is that of [RCJ95], which describes an approach for extracting sequential components from a system specification. Unlike, however, our work here, which starts from a highly abstract relational specification, the approach of [RCJ95] assumes that the system's specification is provided by means of an interface specification of the components.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another related work is that of [RCJ95], which describes an approach for extracting sequential components from a system specification. Unlike, however, our work here, which starts from a highly abstract relational specification, the approach of [RCJ95] assumes that the system's specification is provided by means of an interface specification of the components. Thus, this approach is more in the sense of a factorization rather then a decomposition.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequential Relational Decomposition

Fried¹,

Legay²,

Ouaknine³

et al. 2022

Logical Methods in Computer Science

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of decomposition in computer science and engineering is considered a fundamental component of computational thinking and is prevalent in design of algorithms, software construction, hardware design, and more. We propose a simple and natural formalization of sequential decomposition, in which a task is decomposed into two sequential sub-tasks, with the first sub-task to be executed before the second sub-task is executed. These tasks are specified by means of input/output relations. We define and study decomposition problems, which is to decide whether a given specification can be sequentially decomposed. Our main result is that decomposition itself is a difficult computational problem. More specifically, we study decomposition problems in three settings: where the input task is specified explicitly, by means of Boolean circuits, and by means of automatic relations. We show that in the first setting decomposition is NP-complete, in the second setting it is NEXPTIME-complete, and in the third setting there is evidence to suggest that it is undecidable. Our results indicate that the intuitive idea of decomposition as a system-design approach requires further investigation. In particular, we show that adding a human to the loop by asking for a decomposition hint lowers the complexity of decomposition problems considerably.

show abstract

“…Parnas's framework, however, assumes that the starting point for decomposition consists of an architectural specification of the system, while our starting point is quite more abstract, as we assume that we are provided with a relational specification. Another related work is that of [41], which describes an approach for extracting sequential components from a system specification. Unlike, however, our work here, which starts from a highly abstract relational specification, the approach of [41] assumes that the system's specification is provided by means of an interface specification of the components.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another related work is that of [41], which describes an approach for extracting sequential components from a system specification. Unlike, however, our work here, which starts from a highly abstract relational specification, the approach of [41] assumes that the system's specification is provided by means of an interface specification of the components. Thus, this approach is more in the sense of a factorization rather then a decomposition.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequential Relational Decomposition

Fried

¹

,

Legay

²

,

Ouaknine

³

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of decomposition in computer science and engineering is considered a fundamental component of computational thinking and is prevalent in design of algorithms, software construction, hardware design, and more. We propose a simple and natural formalization of sequential decomposition, in which a task is decomposed into two sequential sub-tasks, with the first sub-task to be executed before the second sub-task is executed. These tasks are specified by means of input/output relations. We define and study decomposition problems, which is to decide whether a given specification can be sequentially decomposed. Our main result is that decomposition itself is a difficult computational problem. More specifically, we study decomposition problems in three settings: where the input task is specified explicitly, by means of Boolean circuits, and by means of automatic relations. We show that in the first setting decomposition is NP-complete, in the second setting it is NEXPTIME-complete, and in the third setting there is evidence to suggest that it is undecidable. Our results indicate that the intuitive idea of decomposition as a system-design approach requires further investigation. In particular, we show that adding a human to the loop by asking for a decomposition hint lowers the complexity of decomposition problems considerably.

show abstract

“…Had a synchronization handshake simply been added to the formally derived implementation, a correctness proof would have been required to validate the newly imposed memory model. Although this kind of refinement has since been added to DDD (Rath, Choppella & Johnson 1995, Rath 1995, it remains a good example of the potential need for heterogeneous reasoning in support of ad hoc refinements. It is difficult to contemplate a general interaction between DDD and Nqthm that would maintain correctness in cases like this.…”

Section: Nqthm and Dddmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Reasoning Support in System Design: Design Derivation and Theorem Proving

Johnson

¹

,

Miner

²

1997

Advances in Hardware Design and Verification

Self Cite

2

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

InPractical applications of formal methods research require the integrated usc of distinct tools for reasoning and design. Many approaches to this problem involve embedding specialized verification procedures in a theorem prover or logical framework. In fact, some theorem provers are promoted as frameworks of just this kind. We discuss some of the problems inherent to such monolithic treatments, illustrating with studies we have done in ad hoc heterogeneous reasoning. For both technical and pragmatic reasons we conclude that shallow embedding, that is, integration through superficial syntax translation, is a reasonable and even necessary approach.

show abstract

Decomposition of Sequential Behavior UsingInterface Specification and Complementation

Cited by 4 publications

References 12 publications

Sequential Relational Decomposition

Sequential Relational Decomposition

Sequential Relational Decomposition

Integrated Reasoning Support in System Design: Design Derivation and Theorem Proving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About