Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Verification of asynchronous systems with an unspecified component

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Acta Informatica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Component-based systems evolve as a new component is added or an existing one is replaced by a newer version. Hence, it is appealing to assure the new system still preserves its safety properties. However, instead of inspecting the new system as a whole, which may result in a large state space, it is beneficial to reuse the verification results by inspecting the newly added component in isolation. To this aim, we study the problem of model checking component-based asynchronously communicating systems in the presence of an unspecified component against safety properties. Our solution is based on assume-guarantee reasoning, adopted for asynchronous environments, which generates the weakest assumption. If the newly added component conforms to the assumption, then the whole system still satisfies the property. To make the approach efficient and convergent, we produce an overapproximated interface of the missing component and by its composition with the rest of the system components, we achieve an overapproximated specification of the system, from which we remove those traces of the system that violate the property and generate an assumption for the missing component. We have implemented our approach on two case studies. Furthermore, we compared our results with the state of the art direct approach. Our resulting assumptions are smaller in size and achieved faster.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Scala programming language supports actor-models http://www.scala-lang.org.

  2. http://www.ros.org.

  3. wiki.ros.org/Robots/Husky.

  4. wiki.ros.org/Robots/Turtlebot.

  5. This encoding is available at http://fghassemi.adhoc.ir/AGcode.zip.

  6. http://cadp.inria.fr/.

References

  1. Agha, G., Mason, I.A., Smith, S.F., Talcott, C.L.: A foundation for actor computation. J. Funct. Program. 7(1), 1–72 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Agha, G.A.: Actors: a model of concurrent computation in distributed systems. Tech. rep., DTIC Document (1985)

  3. Agha, G.A.: The structure and semantics of actor languages. In: Workshop/School/Symposium of the REX Project (Research and Education in Concurrent Systems), pp. 1–59. Springer, Berlin (1990)

  4. Agha, G.A., Mason, I.A., Smith, S.F., Talcott, C.L.: A foundation for actor computation. J. Funct. Program. 7(01), 1–72 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Almonaies, A.A., Cordy, J.R., Dean, T.R.: Legacy system evolution towards service-oriented architecture. In: International Workshop on SOA Migration and Evolution, pp. 53–62 (2010)

  6. Alpern, B., Schneider, F.B.: Recognizing safety and liveness. Distrib. Comput. 2(3), 117–126 (1987)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Alur, R., Madhusudan, P., Nam, W.: Symbolic compositional verification by learning assumptions. In: International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, pp. 548–562. Springer, Berlin (2005)

  8. Andersen, H.R., Stirling, C., Winskel, G.: A compositional proof system for the modal mu-calculus. In: Ninth Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 144–153. IEEE Computer Society (1994)

  9. Angluin, D.: Learning regular sets from queries and counterexamples. Inf. Comput. 75(2), 87–106 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Asaadi, H.R., Khosravi, R., Mousavi, M., Noroozi, N.: Towards model-based testing of electronic funds transfer systems. In: International Conference on Fundamentals of Software Engineering, pp. 253–267. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  11. Baier, C., Katoen, J.P., Larsen, K.G.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Bergstra, J.A., Klop, J.W.: Process algebra for synchronous communication. Inf. Control 60(1–3), 109–137 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Bloom, B., Fokkink, W., Van Glabbeek, R.J.: Precongruence formats for decorated trace semantics. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 5(1), 26–78 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Bobaru, M.G., Pasareanu, C.S., Giannakopoulou, D.: Automated assume-guarantee reasoning by abstraction refinement. In: International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, pp. 135–148. Springer, Berlin (2008)

  15. Boreale, M., De Nicola, R., Pugliese, R.: Trace and testing equivalence on asynchronous processes. Inf. Comput. 172(2), 139–164 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Brookes, S.D., Rounds, W.C.: Behavioural equivalence relations induced by programming logics. In: International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pp. 97–108. Springer, Berlin (1983)

  17. Canfora, G., Fasolino, A.R., Frattolillo, G., Tramontana, P.: A wrapping approach for migrating legacy system interactive functionalities to service oriented architectures. J. Syst. Softw. 81(4), 463–480 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cassandras, C.G., Lafortune, S.: Introduction to Discrete Event Systems. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Chaki, S., Strichman, O.: Optimized l*-based assume-guarantee reasoning. In: International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 276–291. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  20. Cheung, S.C., Kramer, J.: Checking safety properties using compositional reachability analysis. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 8(1), 49–78 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Clarke, E.M., Long, D.E., McMillan, K.L.: Compositional model checking. In: Proceedings of 4th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 353–362. IEEE (1989)

  23. Cobleigh, J.M., Avrunin, G.S., Clarke, L.A.: Breaking up is hard to do: an evaluation of automated assume-guarantee reasoning. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 17(2), 7 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cobleigh, J.M., Giannakopoulou, D., Pasareanu, C.S.: Learning assumptions for compositional verification. In: International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 331–346. Springer, Berlin (2003)

  25. Cortadella, J., Kishinevsky, M., Kondratyev, A., Lavagno, L., Yakovlev, A.: Petrify: a tool for manipulating concurrent specifications and synthesis of asynchronous controllers. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 80(3), 315–325 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cortadella, J., Kishinevsky, M., Kondratyev, A., Lavagno, L., Yakovlev, A.: Logic Synthesis for Asynchronous Controllers and Interfaces, vol. 8. Springer, Berlin (2012)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Dai, G., Bai, X., Zhao, C.: A framework for model checking web service compositions based on bpel4ws. In: International Conference on e-Business Engineering, pp. 165–172. IEEE (2007)

  28. De Nicola, R., Hennessy, M.: Testing equivalences for processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 34, 83–133 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Fabian, M., Lennartson, B.: On non-deterministic supervisory control. In: Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, vol. 2, pp. 2213–2218. IEEE (1996)

  30. Feng, X., Ferreira, R., Shao, Z.: On the relationship between concurrent separation logic and assume-guarantee reasoning. In: European Symposium on Programming, pp. 173–188. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  31. Fokkink, W., Van Glabbeek, R., De Wind, P.: Compositionality of hennessy-milner logic by structural operational semantics. Theor. Comput. Sci. 354(3), 421–440 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Foster, H., Uchitel, S., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Ws-engineer: a model-based approach to engineering web service compositions and choreography. In: Test and Analysis of Web Services, pp. 87–119. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  33. Gao, C., Liu, R., Song, Y., Chen, H.: A model checking tool embedded into services composition environment. In: International Conference on Grid and Cooperative Computing, pp. 355–362. IEEE (2006)

  34. Giannakopoulou, D., Pasareanu, C.S., Barringer, H.: Component verification with automatically generated assumptions. Autom. Softw. Eng. 12(3), 297–320 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Grinchtein, O., Leucker, M., Piterman, N.: Inferring network invariants automatically. In: International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, pp. 483–497. Springer, Berlin (2006)

  36. Groote, J.F., Mousavi, M.R.: Modeling and Analysis of Communicating Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2014)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model checking and modular verification. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(3), 843–871 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gupta, A., McMillan, K.L., Fu, Z.: Automated assumption generation for compositional verification. In: International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, pp. 420–432. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  39. Hashimi, S.: Service-oriented architecture explained. Available at http://www.windowsdevcenter.com/pub/a/dotnet/2003/08/18/soa_explained.html (2003)

  40. Hewitt, C.: Orgs for scalable, robust, privacy-friendly client cloud computing. IEEE Internet Comput. 12(5), 96 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hewitt, C.: Actorscript(tm): Industrial strength integration of local and nonlocal concurrency for client-cloud computing. CoRR abs/0907.3330 (2009). http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3330

  42. Heymann, M., Lin, F.: Discrete-event control of nondeterministic systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 43(1), 3–17 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Huth, M., Ryan, M.: Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning About Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O.: An asynchronous communication model for distributed concurrent objects. Softw. Syst. Model. 6(1), 39–58 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Yu, I.C.: Creol: a type-safe object-oriented model for distributed concurrent systems. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 365(1), 23–66 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Jones, C.B.: Specification and design of (parallel) programs. IFIP Congress 83, 321–332 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Karmani, R.K., Shali, A., Agha, G.A.: Actor frameworks for the JVM platform: a comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Programming in Java, pp. 11–20. ACM (2009)

  48. Kupferman, O., Lampert, R.: On the construction of fine automata for safety properties. In: Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, 4th International Symposium. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4218, pp. 110–124. Springer, Berlin (2006)

  49. Larsen, K.G.: Context-dependent bisimulation between processes (1986)

  50. Larsen, K.G., Xinxin, L.: Compositionality through an operational semantics of contexts. J. Log. Comput. 1(6), 761–795 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Lewis, G., Morris, E., Smith, D., O’Brien, L.: Service-oriented migration and reuse technique (smart). In: 13th IEEE International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice, pp. 222–229. IEEE (2005)

  52. Linthicum, D.S.: Enterprise Application Integration. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Markovski, J.: A process-theoretic approach to supervisory coordination under partial observation. Sci. Comput. Program. 115, 127–145 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nam, W., Alur, R.: Learning-based symbolic assume-guarantee reasoning with automatic decomposition. In: International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, pp. 170–185. Springer, Berlin (2006)

  55. Nam, W., Madhusudan, P., Alur, R.: Automatic symbolic compositional verification by learning assumptions. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 32(3), 207–234 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. van Noord, G.: Treatment of epsilon moves in subset construction. Comput. Linguist. 26(1), 61–76 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  57. Overkamp, A.: Supervisory control using failure semantics and partial specifications. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 42(4), 498–510 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  58. Parveen, T., Tilley, S.: A research agenda for testing soa-based systems. In: 2nd Annual IEEE Systems Conference, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2008)

  59. Pasareanu, C.S., Giannakopoulou, D., Bobaru, M.G., Cobleigh, J.M., Barringer, H.: Learning to divide and conquer: applying the l* algorithm to automate assume-guarantee reasoning. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 32(3), 175–205 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. Pena, J.M., Oliveira, A.L.: A new algorithm for exact reduction of incompletely specified finite state machines. IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 18(11), 1619–1632 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Pnueli, A.: In transition from global to modular temporal reasoning about programs. In: Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pp. 123–144. Springer, Berlin (1985)

  62. Raclet, J.B.: Residual for component specifications. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 215, 93–110 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ramadge, P., Wonham, W.: Supervisory control of a class of discrete event processes. In: Analysis and Optimization of Systems, pp. 475–498. Springer, Berlin (1984)

  64. Ramadge, P.J., Wonham, W.M.: Supervisory control of a class of discrete event processes. SIAM J. Control Optim. 25(1), 206–230 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Sen, K.: Concolic testing and constraint satisfaction. In: International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6695, pp. 3–4. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  66. Sirjani, M.: Rebeca: Theory, Applications, and Tools, pp. 102–126. Springer, Berlin (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sirjani, M., Movaghar, A., Shali, A., De Boer, F.S.: Modeling and verification of reactive systems using rebeca. Fundam. Informaticae 63(4), 385–410 (2004)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  68. Szyperski, C.: Component Software: Beyond Object-oriented Programming, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc, Boston (2002)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  69. Thati, P., Ziaei, R., Agha, G.: A theory of may testing for actors. In: IFIP TC6/WG6.1 Fifth International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems. IFIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 209, pp. 147–162. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)

  70. Van Hulst, A.C., Reniers, M.A., Fokkink, W.J.: Maximal synthesis for hennessy-milner logic. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 14(1), 10 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Wan, K.M., Lei, P., Chatwin, C., Young, R.: Service-oriented architecture. Encycl. E-Commer. E-Gov. Mob. Commer. 160(1), 998–1002 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Zakeriyan, A., Khamespanah, E., Sirjani, M., Khosravi, R.: Jacco: more efficient model checking toolset for java actor programs. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Programming Based on Actors, Agents, and Decentralized Control, pp. 37–44. ACM (2015)

  73. Zheng, Y., Zhou, J., Krause, P.: A model checking based test case generation framework forweb services. In: International Conference on Information Technology, pp. 715–722. IEEE (2007)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mohammad Reza Mousavi for his helpful discussion on the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Rosa Abbasi, Fatemeh Ghassemi & Ramtin Khosravi

Authors
  1. Rosa Abbasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fatemeh Ghassemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ramtin Khosravi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatemeh Ghassemi.

Appendix A: Actors of the EFT system

Appendix A: Actors of the EFT system

See Figs. 21, 22 and 23.

Fig. 21
figure 21

Actors of the open system of EFT system

Full size image
Fig. 22
figure 22

Actors of the open system of EFT system

Full size image
Fig. 23
figure 23

Actor \(A_{ InfM }\) of EFT system

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abbasi, R., Ghassemi, F. & Khosravi, R. Verification of asynchronous systems with an unspecified component. Acta Informatica 56, 161–203 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00236-018-0317-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00236-018-0317-x