Abstract
It is a well recognised fact that design errors in parallel systems are often hard to identify—due to their non-deterministic nature. It is therefore important that designs are analysedbefore the implementation phase begins. Even small parallel systems often have an intrinsic structure which is hard to fully understand, and the support of automated tools is therefore indispensable. In order to be of any practical use, the computations of such tools must be (polynomially) effective in terms of the system size, and furthermore it must be possible to reason about the system in terms of the properties of its (parallel) components—in order to avoid state-space explosion. Finally, the well-establishedstepwise refinement design strategy must be supported.
The tools of theTav-system fulfil the above requirements, and in this paper we present its features by analysing a simple transmission protocol. The cornerstone of the system is the theory ofmodal transition systems, which allows for efficient decidability, stepwise refinement, and compositionality. The theory also supports a unique feature ofTav, namely the ability to provide explanations in case of design errors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. Bergstra and J. Klop, “Process algebra for synchronous communication,”Information and Control, 60:109–137, 1984
T. Bolognesi and E. Brinksma, “Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS,”Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 14:25–59, 1987.
S. Brookes and A. Roscoe, “An improved failures equivalence model for communicating processes,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 197:281–305, 1984.
G. Bruns, “A case study in safety-critical design,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 663:220–233, 1992.
R. DeNicola and M. Hennessy, “Testing equivalence for processes,”Theoretical Computer Science, 34:88–133, 1983.
J. Godskesen, K. Larsen, and M. Zeeberg, “TAV (Tools for Automatic Verification)—Users Manual,” Technical Report R89-19, Aalborg University, Denmark, 1989.
M. Hennessy.Algebraic Theory of Processes, MIT Press, London/Cambridge, 1988.
M. Hennessy and R. Milner, “Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency,”Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery: 137–161, 1985.
C. Hoare,Communicating Sequential Processes, Prentice-Hall, London, 1985.
H. Hüttel and K. Larsen, “The use of static constructs in a modal process logic,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 363, 1989.Proceedings of Logic at Botik'89.
Bengt Jonsson and Joachim Parrow, “Deciding bisimulation equivalences for a class of non-finite-state programs,” inProceedings of STACS'89, Vol. 349 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1989.
P.C. Kanellakis and S.A. Smolka, “CCS expressions, finite state processes, and three problems of equivalence,”Information and Control, 86:43–68, 1990.
K. Larsen and B. Thomsen, “A modal process logic,” inProceedings LICS'88, 1988.
K.G. Larsen, “Efficient Local Correctness Checking,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 663:30–43, 1993.
K.G. Larsen, “Modal specifications,” inProceedings of Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, Vol. 407 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1990.
K.G. Larsen, “Proof systems for satisfiability for Hennessy-Milner logic with recursion,”Theoretical Computer Science, 72, 1990.
K.G. Larsen and R. Milner, “Verifying a Protocol Using Relativized Bisimulation,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 267:126–135, 1987.
K.G. Larsen and B. Thomsen, “Partial specifications and compositional verification,”Theoretical Computer Science, 88:15–32, 1991.
K.G. Larsen and L. Xinxin, “Equation solving using modal transition systems,” inProceedings on Logic in Computer Science, 1990.
R. Milner, “Calculus of Communicating Systems,” Vol. 92 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1980.
R. Milner, “Calculi for synchrony and asynchrony,”Theoretical Computer Science, 25:267–310, 1983.
Robin Milner,Communication and Concurrency. Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall International. London, 1989.
D. Park, “Concurrency and Automata on Infinite Sequences,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 104:167–183, 1981.
G. Plotkin, “A structural approach to operational semantics,” FN 19, DAIMI, Aarhus University, Denmark, 1981.
A. Pnueli, “Linear and branching structures in the semantics and logics of reactive systems,” in W. Braur, editor,ICALP'85, Vol. 194 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science:15–32, 1985.
V. Roy and R. de Simone, “An autograph primer,” Technical Report 112, INRIA, France, October 1989.
D. Walker, “Bisimulation and divergence,” inProceedings of LICS'88, 1988.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work has been supported in part by the POTP-project at Aalborg University and by the Esprit project Concur 2.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Børjesson, A., Larsen, K.G. & Skou, A. Generality in design and compositional verification usingTav . Form Method Syst Des 6, 239–258 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384499
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384499