Skip to main content

Compositional Verification in Action

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems (FMICS 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 11119))

Abstract

Concurrent systems are intrinsically complex and their verification is hampered by the well-known “state-space explosion” issue. Compositional verification is a powerful approach, based on the divide-and-conquer paradigm, to address this issue. Despite impressive results, this approach is not used widely enough in practice, probably because it exists under multiple variants that make knowledge of the field hard to attain. In this article, we highlight the seminal results of Graf & Steffen and propose a survey of compositional verification techniques that exploit (or not) these results.

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

Access this chapter

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

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Some authors consider rendezvous as synchronous and message queues as asynchronous.

  2. 2.

    For conciseness, we use the same term “model” and the same letter M to refer both to the “meta-model” (i.e., the low-level formalism) and the “models” (i.e., all particular instances expressed in this formalism).

  3. 3.

    Also called subsystems, agents, or processes in the literature.

  4. 4.

    In theoretical papers that use M in place of L, there is a notational confusion between \(C_i\) and \([\![C_i]\!]\), which is particularly annoying when the latter cannot be computed.

  5. 5.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/man/bcg.html.

  6. 6.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/man/exp.open.html.

  7. 7.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/man/bcg_cmp.html.

  8. 8.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/man/bcg_min.html.

  9. 9.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/man/caesar.html.

  10. 10.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/man/caesar.adt.html.

  11. 11.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/man/lnt2lotos.html.

  12. 12.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/man/svl-lang.html.

  13. 13.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/man/svl.html.

  14. 14.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/demos.

  15. 15.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/91-c-relrel.html.

  16. 16.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/94-a-transitnode.html.

  17. 17.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/95-c-groupware.html.

  18. 18.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/96-d-tcp.html.

  19. 19.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/96-f-leaderelection.html.

  20. 20.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/96-h-powerscale.html.

  21. 21.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/97-c-dcl.html.

  22. 22.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/98-d-omrr.html.

  23. 23.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/98-g-inres.html.

  24. 24.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/98-i-cfs.html.

  25. 25.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/99-a-havi.html.

  26. 26.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/99-b-dill.html.

  27. 27.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/01-d-checkpointing.html.

  28. 28.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/04-a-electronic-invoices.html.

  29. 29.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/05-c-components.html.

  30. 30.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/07-a-faust.html.

  31. 31.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/09-a-collab-diag.html.

  32. 32.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/09-h-tftp.html.

  33. 33.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/09-p-web-and-grid.html.

  34. 34.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/13-c-regulatory-modules.html.

  35. 35.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/13-f-utahnoc.html.

  36. 36.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/14-d-hmi.html.

  37. 37.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/98-b-markov-pots.html.

  38. 38.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/02-f-scsi-2.html.

  39. 39.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/06-e-etcs.html.

  40. 40.

    Online manuscript at http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~graf/PAPERS/GLS96.pdf.

  41. 41.

    Also called context constraints or environment constraints in the literature.

  42. 42.

    Also called behavioural interface, interface specifications, or process interface.

  43. 43.

    This operator was actually named reduction in [36], but we prefer the term semi-composition later introduced by Krimm & Mounier [51], because the former term often denotes a minimisation operation that is incompletely done, yielding a smaller yet not necessarily minimal result: partial-order reduction, symmetry reduction, tau-confluence reduction, etc.

  44. 44.

    In some cases [36, Sect. 6], interfaces reduce complexity from exponential to linear.

  45. 45.

    Such an iterative approach based upon incremental refinement was very much the Cegar idea published ten years later [15].

  46. 46.

    Internal actions are usually noted \(\tau \) in most process calculi.

  47. 47.

    This state is called cut state in [82].

  48. 48.

    A Lotos action can be seen as a value tuple, the first element of which is the gate.

  49. 49.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/man/svl-lang.html (see “abstraction”).

  50. 50.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/man/projector.html.

  51. 51.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/man/svl-lang.html (see “refined abstraction”).

  52. 52.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/91-c-relrel.html

  53. 53.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/96-f-leaderelection.html

  54. 54.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/99-e-atc.html.

  55. 55.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/00-c-polykid.html.

  56. 56.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/03-e-parfums.html.

  57. 57.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/10-f-mutex.html.

  58. 58.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/15-f-des.html.

  59. 59.

    http://cadp.inria.fr/case-studies/18-1-mpu.html.

References

  1. Arnold, A.: Synchronized behaviours of processes and rational relations. Acta Inf. 17, 21–29 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Attali, I., Barros, T., Madelaine, E.: Parameterized specification and verification of the Chilean electronic invoices system. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC 2004), Arica, Chili, pp. 14–25. Society for Computer Simulation International, IEEE, November 2004

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bainbridge, S., Mounier, L.: Specification and verification of a reliable multicast protocol. Technical report HPL-91-163, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK, October 1991

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barros, T., Henrio, L., Madelaine, E.: Behavioural models for hierarchical components. In: Godefroid, P. (ed.) SPIN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3639, pp. 154–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11537328_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Barros, T., Henrio, L., Madelaine, E.: Verification of distributed hierarchical components. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS 2005), Macao. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, October 2005

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barros, T., Madelaine, E.: Formalization and proofs of the Chilean electronic invoices system. INRIA Research Report 5527, INRIA, June 2004

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., Smolka, S.A. (eds.): Handbook of Process Algebra. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Böde, E., et al.: Compositional performability evaluation for Statemate. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QUEST 2006), Riverside, California, USA, pp. 167–178. IEEE Computer Society Press, September 2006

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boulgakov, A., Gibson-Robinson, T., Roscoe, A.W.: Computing maximal weak and other bisimulations. Form. Asp. Comput. 28(3), 381–407 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Bouzafour, A., Renaudin, M., Garavel, H., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: Model-checking synthesizable SystemVerilog descriptions of asynchronous circuits. In: Krstic, M., Jones, I.W. (eds.) Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Symposium on Asynchronous Circuits and Systems (ASYNC 2018), Vienna, Austria. IEEE, May 2018

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chehaibar, G., Garavel, H., Mounier, L., Tawbi, N., Zulian, F.: Specification and verification of the PowerScale bus arbitration protocol: an industrial experiment with LOTOS. In: Gotzhein, R., Bredereke, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP Joint International Conference on Formal Description Techniques for Distributed Systems and Communication Protocols, and Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification (FORTE/PSTV 1996), Kaiserslautern, Germany, pp. 435–450. Chapman & Hall, October 1996. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-2958

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cheung, S.C., Kramer, J.: Enhancing compositional reachability analysis with context constraints. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 115–125. ACM Press, December 1993

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cheung, S.C., Kramer, J.: Compositional reachability analysis of finite-state distributed systems with user-specified constraints. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 140–150. ACM Press, October 1995

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cheung, S.C., Kramer, J.: Context constraints for compositional reachability. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 5(4), 334–377 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/10722167_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Crouzen, P., Lang, F.: Smart reduction. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Orejas, F. (eds.) FASE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6603, pp. 111–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19811-3_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Fernandez, J.C.: ALDEBARAN: un système de vérification par réduction de processus communicants. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble), May 1988

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fernandez, J.C., Garavel, H., Mounier, L., Rasse, A., Rodríguez, C., Sifakis, J.: A toolbox for the verification of LOTOS programs. In: Clarke, L.A. (ed.) Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’14), Melbourne, Australia, pp. 246–259. ACM, May 1992

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fogel, J.: A survey of verification techniques for solving the state explosion problem. In: Proceedings of the IFAC Conference on Control Systems Design (CSD 2000), Bratislava, Slovak Republic, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 33(13), pp. 361–366, June 2000

    Google Scholar 

  20. Furia, C.: A compositional world: a survey of recent works on compositionality in formal methods. Technical report 2005.22, Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione, Politecnico di Milano, Italy, March 2005

    Google Scholar 

  21. Garavel, H.: OPEN/CÆSAR: an open software architecture for verification, simulation, and testing. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, pp. 68–84. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0054165. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-3352

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Garavel, H., Graf, S.: Formal methods for safe and secure computers systems. BSI Study 875, Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, Bonn, Germany, December 2013

    Google Scholar 

  23. Garavel, H., Hermanns, H.: On combining functional verification and performance evaluation using CADP. In: Eriksson, L.-H., Lindsay, P.A. (eds.) FME 2002. LNCS, vol. 2391, pp. 410–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45614-7_23. Full version available as INRIA Research Report 4492

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Garavel, H., Lang, F.: SVL: a scripting language for compositional verification. In: Kim, M., Chin, B., Kang, S., Lee, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 21st IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference on Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems (FORTE 2001), Cheju Island, Korea, pp. 377–392. Kluwer Academic Publishers, August 2001. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-4223

    Google Scholar 

  25. Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R.: Compositional verification of asynchronous concurrent systems using CADP. Acta Inform. 52(4), 337–392 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2011: a toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed processes. Springer Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (STTT) 15(2), 89–107 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Garavel, H., Lang, F., Serwe, W.: From LOTOS to LNT. In: Katoen, J.-P., Langerak, R., Rensink, A. (eds.) ModelEd, TestEd, TrustEd. LNCS, vol. 10500, pp. 3–26. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68270-9_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Garavel, H., Mounier, L.: Specification and verification of various distributed leader election algorithms for unidirectional ring networks. Sci. Comput. Program. 29(1–2), 171–197 (1997). Special issue on Industrially Relevant Applications of Formal Analysis Techniques. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-2986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Garavel, H., Sighireanu, M.: A graphical parallel composition operator for process algebras. In: Wu, J., Gao, Q., Chanson, S.T. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP Joint International Conference on Formal Description Techniques for Distributed Systems and Communication Protocols, and Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification (FORTE/PSTV 1999), Beijing, China, pp. 185–202. Kluwer Academic Publishers, October 1999

    Google Scholar 

  30. Garavel, H., Thivolle, D.: Verification of GALS systems by combining synchronous languages and process calculi. In: Păsăreanu, C.S. (ed.) SPIN 2009. LNCS, vol. 5578, pp. 241–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02652-2_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Garavel, H., Viho, C., Zendri, M.: System design of a CC-NUMA multiprocessor architecture using formal specification, model-checking, co-simulation, and test generation. Springer Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (STTT) 3(3), 314–331 (2001). Also available as INRIA Research Report RR-4041

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Giannakopoulou, D.: Model checking for concurrent software architectures. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London, Department of Computer Science, January 1999

    Google Scholar 

  33. Giannakopoulou, D., Namjoshi, K.S., Păsăreanu, C.S.: Compositional reasoning. In: Clarke, E., Henzinger, T., Veith, H., Bloem, R. (eds.) Handbook of Model Checking, pp. 345–383. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. van Glabbeek, R.J., Weijland, W.P.: Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics. J. ACM 43(3), 555–600 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Godza, G., Cristea, V., Mateescu, R.: Formal specification of checkpointing algorithms. In: Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science (CSCS 2013), Bucharest, Romania, pp. 311–317. Polytechnic University of Bucharest, May 2001

    Google Scholar 

  36. Graf, S., Steffen, B.: Compositional minimization of finite state systems. In: Clarke, E.M., Kurshan, R.P. (eds.) CAV 1990. LNCS, vol. 531, pp. 186–196. Springer, Heidelberg (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0023732

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Graf, S., Steffen, B.: Compositional minimization of finite state systems. Aachener Informatik-Berichte AIB 1991-23, RWTH Aachen University, Department of Computer Science, Germany (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Graf, S., Steffen, B., Lüttgen, G.: Compositional minimization of finite state systems using interface specifications. Research Report MIP-9505, Universität Passau, Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, Germany (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Graf, S., Steffen, B., Lüttgen, G.: Compositional minimization of finite state systems using interface specifications. Form. Asp. Comput. 8(5), 607–616 (1996). 10-page article published in the paper version of the journal

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Graf, S., Steffen, B., Lüttgen, G.: Compositional minimization of finite state systems using interface specifications. Form. Asp. Comput. 8E, 286–313 (1996). 28-page article published in the electronic repository of the journal. http://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1007%2FBF01211911/MediaObjects/165_2005_BF01211911_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

  41. He, J., Turner, K.J.: Specification and verification of synchronous hardware using LOTOS. In: Wu, J., Chanson, S.T., Gao, Q. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP Joint International Conference on Formal Description Techniques for Distributed Systems and Communication Protocols and Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification (FORTE/PSTV 1999), Beijing, China, pp. 295–312. Kluwer Academic Publishers, October 1999

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hermanns, H.: Interactive Markov Chains. LNCS, vol. 2428. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45804-2

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.P.: Automated compositional Markov chain generation for a plain-old telephone system. Sci. Comput. Program. 36, 97–127 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM 21(8), 666–677 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. ISO/IEC: LOTOS - A Formal Description Technique Based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour. International Standard 8807, International Organization for Standardization - Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection, Geneva, September 1989

    Google Scholar 

  47. de Jacquier, A., Massart, T., Hernalsteen, C.: Vérification et correction d’un protocole de contrôle aérien. Technical report 363, Université Libre de Bruxelles, May 1997

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kerbrat, A., Ben Atallah, S.: Formal specification of a framework for groupware development. In: Bochmann, G., Dssouli, R., Rafiq, O. (eds.) FORTE 1995. IFIPAICT, pp. 303–310. Springer, Boston (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34945-9_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Kordon, F., et al.: MCC’2017 - The Seventh Model Checking Contest. Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency (2018, to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Krimm, J.-P.: Une approche compositionnelle pour la vérification de programmes LOTOS. Master’s thesis, Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble), June 1996

    Google Scholar 

  51. Krimm, J.-P., Mounier, L.: Compositional state space generation from LOTOS programs. In: Brinksma, E. (ed.) TACAS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1217, pp. 239–258. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035392. Extended version with proofs available as Research Report VERIMAG RR97-01

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Lang, F.: Compositional verification using SVL scripts. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 465–469. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46002-0_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Lang, F.: Refined interfaces for compositional verification. In: Najm, E., Pradat-Peyre, J.-F., Viguié Donzeau-Gouge, V. (eds.) FORTE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4229, pp. 159–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11888116_13. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-5996

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Luukkainen, M., Ahtiainen, A.: Compositional verification of large SDL systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop of the SDL Forum Society on SDL and MSC (SAM 1998), Berlin, Germany, June 1998

    Google Scholar 

  55. Malhotra, J., Smolka, S.A., Giacalone, A., Shapiro, R.: A tool for hierarchical design and simulation of concurrent systems. In: Proceedings of the BCS-FACS Workshop on Specification and Verification of Concurrent Systems, Stirling, Scotland, UK, pp. 140–152. British Computer Society, July 1988

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: A study of shared-memory mutual exclusion protocols using CADP. In: Kowalewski, S., Roveri, M. (eds.) FMICS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6371, pp. 180–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15898-8_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  57. Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: Model checking and performance evaluation with CADP illustrated on shared-memory mutual exclusion protocols. Sci. Comput. Program. 78(7), 843–861 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Mazzanti, F., Ferrari, A.: Ten diverse formal models for a CBTC automatic train supervision system. In: Gallagher, J.P., van Glabbeek, R., Serwe, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Models for Formal Analysis of Real Systems and the 6th International Workshop on Verification and Program Transformation (MARS/VPT 2018), Thessaloniki, Greece. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 268, pp. 104–149, April 2018

    Google Scholar 

  59. Mazzanti, F., Ferrari, A., Spagnolo, G.O.: Towards formal methods diversity in railways: an experience report with seven frameworks. Springer Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (STTT) 20(3), 263–288 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Mendes, N., Lang, F., Cornec, Y.S.L., Mateescu, R., Batt, G., Chaouiya, C.: Composition and abstraction of logical regulatory modules: application to multicellular systems. Bioinformatics 29(6), 749–757 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Milner, R. : A Calculus of Communicating Systems. LNCS, vol. 92. Springer, Heidelberg (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-10235-3

  62. Mounier, L.: A LOTOS specification of a transit-node. Rapport SPECTRE 94-8, VERIMAG, Grenoble, March 1994

    Google Scholar 

  63. Oliveira, R., Dupuy-Chessa, S., Calvary, G., Dadolle, D.: Using formal models to cross check an implementation. In: Luyten, K., Palanque, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS 2016), Brussels, Belgium, pp. 126–137. ACM, June 2016

    Google Scholar 

  64. Park, D.: Concurrency and automata on infinite sequences. In: Deussen, P. (ed.) GI-TCS 1981. LNCS, vol. 104, pp. 167–183. Springer, Heidelberg (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0017309

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  65. Pecheur, C.: Advanced modelling and verification techniques applied to a cluster file system. In: Hall, R.J., Tyugu, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 1999), Cocoa Beach, Florida, USA. IEEE Computer Society, October 1999. Extended version available as INRIA Research Report RR-3416

    Google Scholar 

  66. Peng, H., Tahar, S.: A survey on compositional verification. Technical report, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, November 1998

    Google Scholar 

  67. Roever, W., et al.: Concurrency Verification - Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  68. Romijn, J.: Analysing industrial protocols with formal methods. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands, September 1999

    Google Scholar 

  69. Sabnani, K.K., Lapone, A.M., Uyar, M.U.: An algorithmic procedure for checking safety properties of protocols. IEEE Trans. Commun. 37(9), 940–948 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sage, M., Johnson, C.: A declarative prototyping environment for the development of multi-user safety-critical systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th International System Safety Conference (ISSC 1999) Orlando, Florida, USA. System Safety Society, August 1999

    Google Scholar 

  71. Salaün, G., Bultan, T.: Realizability of choreographies using process algebra encodings. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 167–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00255-7_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  72. Salaün, G., Serwe, W.: Translating hardware process algebras into standard process algebras: illustration with CHP and LOTOS. In: Romijn, J., Smith, G., van de Pol, J. (eds.) IFM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3771, pp. 287–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11589976_17. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-5666

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  73. Salaün, G., Serwe, W., Thonnart, Y., Vivet, P.: Formal verification of CHP specifications with CADP - illustration on an asynchronous network-on-chip. In: Beerel, P., Roncken, M., Greenstreet, M., Singh, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Symposium on Asynchronous Circuits and Systems (ASYNC 2007), Berkeley, California, USA, pp. 73–82. IEEE Computer Society Press, March 2007

    Google Scholar 

  74. Schieferdecker, I.: Abruptly-terminated connections in TCP - a verification example. In: Brezočnik, Z., Kapus, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the COST 247 International Workshop on Applied Formal Methods in System Design, Maribor, Slovenia, pp. 136–145. University of Maribor, Slovenia, June 1996

    Google Scholar 

  75. Serwe, W.: Formal specification and verification of fully asynchronous implementations of the data encryption standard. In: van Glabbeek, R., Groote, J.F., Höfner, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Models for Formal Analysis of Real Systems (MARS 2015), Suva, Fiji. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 196 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  76. Tai, K.C., Koppol, V.: An incremental approach to reachability analysis of distributed programs. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 141–150. IEEE Press, Piscataway, December 1993

    Google Scholar 

  77. Tai, K.C., Koppol, V.: Hierarchy-based incremental reachability analysis of communication protocols. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 318–325. IEEE Press, Piscataway, October 1993

    Google Scholar 

  78. Tan, L.: Case studies using CRESS to develop web and grid services. Technical report, Department of Computing Science and Mathematics, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK, December 2009

    Google Scholar 

  79. Tronel, F., Lang, F., Garavel, H.: Compositional verification using CADP of the ScalAgent deployment protocol for software components. In: Najm, E., Nestmann, U., Stevens, P. (eds.) FMOODS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2884, pp. 244–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39958-2_17. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-5012

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  80. Valmari, A.: Compositional state space generation. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) ICATPN 1991. LNCS, vol. 674, pp. 427–457. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56689-9_54

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  81. Valmari, A.: Compositionality in state space verification methods. In: Billington, J., Reisig, W. (eds.) ICATPN 1996. LNCS, vol. 1091, pp. 29–56. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61363-3_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  82. Valmari, A.: Composition and abstraction. In: Cassez, F., Jard, C., Rozoy, B., Ryan, M.D. (eds.) MOVEP 2000. LNCS, vol. 2067, pp. 58–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45510-8_3

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  83. Valmari, A., Kemppainen, J., Clegg, M., Levanto, M.: Putting advanced reachability analysis techniques together: The “ARA” tool. In: Woodcock, J.C.P., Larsen, P.G. (eds.) FME 1993. LNCS, vol. 670, pp. 597–616. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0024669

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  84. Valmari, A., Kokkarinen, I.: Unbounded verification results by finite-state compositional techniques: \(10^{\text{any}}\) states and beyond. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD 1998), Fukushima, Japan, pp. 75–85. IEEE Computer Society, March 1998

    Google Scholar 

  85. Willemse, T.: The specification and validation of the OM/RR-protocol. Master’s thesis, Department of Mathematics and Computing Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, June 1998

    Google Scholar 

  86. Willemse, T., Tretmans, J., Klomp, A.: A case study in formal methods: specification and validation of the OM/RR protocol. In: Gnesi, S., Schieferdecker, I., Rennoch, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems (FMICS 2000), Berlin, Germany, pp. 331–344. GMD Report 91, Berlin, April 2000

    Google Scholar 

  87. Yeh, W.J.: Controlling state explosion in reachability analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Software Engineering Research Center (SERC) Laboratory, Purdue University, December 1993. Technical report SERC-TR-147-P

    Google Scholar 

  88. Yeh, W.J., Young, M.: Compositional reachability analysis using process algebra. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Testing, Analysis, and Verification (SIGSOFT 1991), Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 49–59. ACM Press, October 1991

    Google Scholar 

  89. Zhang, Z., Serwe, W., Wu, J., Zheng, T.Y.H., Myers, C.: An improved fault-tolerant routing algorithm for a network-on-chip derived with formal analysis. Sci. Comput. Program. 118, 24–39 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The present work has been partly funded by Bpi France and Feder (Fonds Européen de Développement Economique Régional) Rhône-Alpes Auvergne under national project SecurIoT-2 supported by the four competitiveness clusters Minalogic, Scs, Systematic Paris-Région, and Derbi.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hubert Garavel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mounier, L. (2018). Compositional Verification in Action. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds) Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems. FMICS 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11119. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00244-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00244-2_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00243-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00244-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics