Component-Interaction Automata for Specification and Verification of Component Interactions P. Vařeková and B. Zimmerova Masaryk University in Brno Czech.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

1 Verification by Model Checking. 2 Part 1 : Motivation.

Advertisements

Model Checking for an Executable Subset of UML Fei Xie 1, Vladimir Levin 2, and James C. Browne 1 1 Dept. of Computer Sciences, UT at Austin 2 Bell Laboratories,

From Model-based to Model-driven Design of User Interfaces.

CS 267: Automated Verification Lecture 8: Automata Theoretic Model Checking Instructor: Tevfik Bultan.

Interface Theories With Component Reuse Laurent DoyenEPFL Thomas HenzingerEPFL Barbara JobstmannEPFL Tatjana PetrovEPFL.

Knowledge Based Synthesis of Control for Distributed Systems Doron Peled.

Verification of Evolving Software Natasha Sharygina Joint work with Sagar Chaki and Nishant Sinha Carnegie Mellon University.

1 Generalized Buchi automaton. 2 Reminder: Buchi automata A=  Alphabet (finite). S: States (finite).  : S x  x S ) S is the transition relation. I.

Timed Automata.

Model Checking : Making Automatic Formal Verification Scale Shaz Qadeer EECS Department University of California at Berkeley.

Software Engineering, COMP 201 Slide 1 Automata and Formal Languages Moore and Mealy Automata Ralf Möller Hamburg Univ. of Technology based on slides by.

An Automata-based Approach to Testing Properties in Event Traces H. Hallal, S. Boroday, A. Ulrich, A. Petrenko Sophia Antipolis, France, May 2003.

Specification and Verification of Trustworthy Component-Based Real-Time Reactive Systems Presented by: Mubarak Mohammad Authors: Vasu Alagar and Mubarak.

Convertibility Verification and Converter Synthesis: Two Faces of the Same Coin Jie-Hong Jiang EE249 Discussion 11/21/2002 Passerone et al., ICCAD ’ 02.

Semantic description of service behavior and automatic composition of services Oussama Kassem Zein Yvon Kermarrec ENST Bretagne France.

Type System, March 12, Data Types and Behavioral Types Yuhong Xiong Edward A. Lee Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University.

1 Finite Automata. 2 Finite Automaton Input “Accept” or “Reject” String Finite Automaton Output.

Review of the automata-theoretic approach to model-checking.

Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California at Berkeley System-Level Types for Component-Based Design Edward A.

Interfaces for Control Components Rajeev Alur University of Pennsylvania Joint work with Gera Weiss (and many others)

Finite Automata Costas Busch - RPI.

Automata and Formal Lanugages Büchi Automata and Model Checking Ralf Möller based on slides by Chang-Beom Choi Provable Software Lab, KAIST.

1 Translating from LTL to automata. 2 Why translating? Want to write the specification in some logic. Want to check that an automaton (or a Kripke structure)

System-Level Types for Component-Based Design Paper by: Edward A. Lee and Yuhong Xiong Presentation by: Dan Patterson.

Formal verification Marco A. Peña Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.

Chapter 8 Asynchronous System Model by Mikhail Nesterenko “Distributed Algorithms” by Nancy A. Lynch.

Lecture 6 Template Semantics CS6133 Fall 2011 Software Specification and Verification.

1 Carnegie Mellon UniversitySPINFlavio Lerda Bug Catching SPIN An explicit state model checker.

Presenter : Cheng-Ta Wu Vijay D’silva, S. Ramesh Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Arcot Sowmya University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Verification technique on SA applications using Incremental Model Checking 컴퓨터학과 신영주.

DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS RESEARCH GROUP CHARLES UNIVERSITY PRAGUE Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Behavior Composition in Component.

November 21, 2005 Center for Hybrid and Embedded Software Systems Tivadar Szemethy, Institute for Software Integrated Systems, Vanderbilt University A.

 Dipl.-Ing. Lars Grunske, 1 Hasso-Plattner-Institute for Software System Engineering at the University of Potsdam Department of Software Engineering and.

INRIA Sophia-Antipolis, Oasis team INRIA Rhône-Alpes, Vasy team Feria–IRIT/LAAS, SVF team Toulouse GET - ENST Paris, LTCI team FIACRE Models and Tools.

DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS RESEARCH GROUP CHARLES UNIVERSITY PRAGUE Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Behavior Composition in Component.

Hybrid automata and temporal logics

Paper written by Flavio Oquendo Presented by Ernesto Medina.

Eric MADELAINE1 T. Barros, L. Henrio, E. Madelaine OASIS Team, INRIA -- CNRS - I3S -- Univ. of Nice Sophia-Antipolis (FACS’05), Fractal workshop, Grenoble.

Timed I/O Automata: A Mathematical Framework for Modeling and Analyzing Real-Time Systems Frits Vaandrager, University of Nijmegen joint work with Dilsun.

Natallia Kokash (Accepted for PACO’2011) ACG, 31/05/ Input-output conformance testing for channel-based connectors 1.

1 Qualitative Reasoning of Distributed Object Design Nima Kaveh & Wolfgang Emmerich Software Systems Engineering Dept. Computer Science University College.

Basic Concepts of Component- Based Software Development (CBSD) Model-Based Programming and Verification.

1 CSEP590 – Model Checking and Automated Verification Lecture outline for August 6, 2003.

Recognizing safety and liveness Presented by Qian Huang.

Lecture 5 1 CSP tools for verification of Sec Prot Overview of the lecture The Casper interface Refinement checking and FDR Model checking Theorem proving.

Constraints Assisted Modeling and Validation Presented in CS294-5 (Spring 2007) Thomas Huining Feng Based on: [1]Constraints Assisted Modeling and Validation.

CSCI1600: Embedded and Real Time Software Lecture 11: Modeling IV: Concurrency Steven Reiss, Fall 2015.

A facilitator to discover and compose services Oussama Kassem Zein Yvon Kermarrec ENST Bretagne.

Chapter 8 Asynchronous System Model by Mikhail Nesterenko “Distributed Algorithms” by Nancy A. Lynch.

Tomás BarrosMonday, April 18, 2005FIACRE Toulouse p. 1 Behavioural Models for Hierarchical Components Tomás Barros, Ludovic Henrio and Eric Madelaine.

Eric MADELAINE1 T. Barros, L. Henrio, E. Madelaine OASIS Team, INRIA -- CNRS - I3S -- Univ. of Nice Sophia-Antipolis DCC, University.

About Alternating Automata Daniel Choi Provable Software Laboratory KAIST.

Formal Languages Finite Automata Dr.Hamed Alrjoub 1FA1.

1 Model-Checking of Component-Based Real-Time Embedded Software Based on CORBA Event Service Yuanfang Zhang for Seminar CSE7216 Presentation based on Zonghua.

I/O & Interface Automata By Josh Lessard, Josh Taylor, Real Xu.

Architecture Description Languages (ADLs) Cf. Architecture Analysis and Design Languages.

Π-AAL: An Architecture Analysis Language for Formally Specifying and Verifying Structural and Behavioral Properties of Software Architectures Presented.

CIS 540 Principles of Embedded Computation Spring Instructor: Rajeev Alur

Laurea Triennale in Informatica – Corso di Ingegneria del Software I – A.A. 2006/2007 Andrea Polini VII. System Specification (I)

Fall 2004COMP 3351 Finite Automata. Fall 2004COMP 3352 Finite Automaton Input String Output String Finite Automaton.

Behavioural Models for Distributed Hierarchical Components

CSE322 Finite Automata Lecture #2.

Model Checking for an Executable Subset of UML

CSE322 Definition and description of finite Automata

CSE322 Minimization of finite Automaton & REGULAR LANGUAGES

Pushdown automata a_introduction.htm.

Paper written by Flavio Oquendo Presented by Ernesto Medina

Translating Linear Temporal Logic into Büchi Automata

BLAST: A Software Verification Tool for C programs

Teori Bahasa dan Automata Lecture 6: Regular Expression

Presentation transcript:

Component-Interaction Automata for Specification and Verification of Component Interactions P. Vařeková and B. Zimmerova Masaryk University in Brno Czech Republic IFM, 2005

Content Motivation slide 3 Specification languages Component-Interaction automata –Component-Interaction automata –Composition of Component-Interaction automata Conclusion and future work 9

Motivation Component-based software systems (CBSs) Component interactions in CBSs Verification of interaction properties Specification languages Architecture description languages (ADLs) Automata-based languages 3

Wright (R. J. Allen, 1997) Darwin / Tracta (J. Magee, J. Kramer, D. Giannakopulou, 1999) SOFA (F. Plasil, S. Visnovsky, 2002) + Hierarchical component architecture + Supported by tools + User friendly - Verification of a small fixed set of properties Specification Languages - ADLs 4

Specification Languages – Automata-based languages I/O automata (N. A. Lynch, M. R. Tuttle, 1987) Interface automata (L. de Alfaro, T. A. Henzinger, 2001) Team automata (C. Ellis, 1997) + General and formal + Verification of temporal properties -Specification of component interactions only -Composition not parameterised by assembly 5

Component-Interaction Automata (CI automata) –Automata based language –Three types of actions input, output, internal –CCS like synchronization one input and one output action which becomes internal later on –Flexible composition can be parameterised by characteristics of the system –Close to architecture description languages can be semi-automatically transformed into CI automata –Close to Buchi automata infinite traces 6

Component-Interaction Automaton Hierarchy States (initial states) Labels (structured - input, output, internal) Labelled transitions Component: Database Client 7 Hierarchy States (initial states) Labels (structured - input, output, internal) Labelled transitions Component: Database Client

Component-Interaction Automaton 7 Hierarchy States (initial states) Labels (structured - input, output, internal) Labelled transitions Component: Database Client

Component-Interaction Automaton 7 Hierarchy States (initial states) Labels (structured - input, output, internal) Labelled transitions Component: Database Client

Component-Interaction Automaton 7 Hierarchy States (initial states) Labels (structured - input, output, internal) Labelled transitions Component: Database Client

Composition of CI automata every finite set of CI automata can be composed transition set of composed CI automaton  complete transition space In figures, states ijk stands for (i, j, k) 8

Composition of CI automata In figures, states ijk stands for (i, j, k) every finite set of CI automata can be composed transition set of composed CI automaton  complete transition space 8

Composition of CI automata In figures, states ijk stands for (i, j, k) every finite set of CI automata can be composed transition set of composed CI automaton  complete transition space 8

Conclusion and future work CI automata –language for specification and verification of component interactions Current work –equivalences and relations among CI automata –temporal logic Future work –automatic transformation from ADL to CI automata –automatic transformation from CI automata to input language of model checking tools 9

Properties verification Transition of component-interaction automaton to input language of verification tool Specification temporal properties G((2, ins, 1)  F(1, done, 2)) Temporal verification, model checking (Divine) true 9