[46] | 1 | % This file was created with JabRef 2.5. |
---|
| 2 | % Encoding: UTF8 |
---|
| 3 | |
---|
| 4 | @INPROCEEDINGS{Cabodi09Speeding, |
---|
| 5 | author = {G. Cabodi and P. Camurati and L. Garcia and M. Murciano and S. Nocco |
---|
| 6 | and S. Quer}, |
---|
| 7 | title = {Speeding up Model Checking by Exploiting Explicit and Hidden Verification |
---|
| 8 | Constraints}, |
---|
| 9 | booktitle = {DATE '09: Proceedings of the conference on Design, Automation and |
---|
| 10 | Test in Europe}, |
---|
| 11 | year = {2009}, |
---|
| 12 | pages = {1686-1691}, |
---|
| 13 | abstract = {Constraints represent a key component of state- |
---|
| 14 | |
---|
| 15 | of-the-art verification tools based on compositional approaches |
---|
| 16 | |
---|
| 17 | and assumeâguarantee reasoning. In recent years, most of the |
---|
| 18 | |
---|
| 19 | research efforts on verification constraints have focused on |
---|
| 20 | |
---|
| 21 | defining formats and techniques to encode, or to synthesize, |
---|
| 22 | |
---|
| 23 | constraints starting from the specification of the design. |
---|
| 24 | |
---|
| 25 | In this paper, we analyze the impact of constraints on the |
---|
| 26 | |
---|
| 27 | performance of model checking tools, and we discuss how to |
---|
| 28 | |
---|
| 29 | effectively exploit them. We also introduce an approach to |
---|
| 30 | |
---|
| 31 | explicitly derive verification constraints hidden in the design |
---|
| 32 | |
---|
| 33 | and/or in the property under verification. Such constraints may |
---|
| 34 | |
---|
| 35 | simply come from true design constraints, embedded within the |
---|
| 36 | |
---|
| 37 | properties, or may be generated in the general effort to reduce or |
---|
| 38 | |
---|
| 39 | partition the state space. Experimental results show that, in both |
---|
| 40 | |
---|
| 41 | cases, we can reap benefits for the overall verification process |
---|
| 42 | |
---|
| 43 | in several hard-to-solve designs, where we obtain speed-ups of |
---|
| 44 | |
---|
| 45 | more than one order of magnitude.}, |
---|
| 46 | file = {:Composition/Speeding up MC by exploiting Explicit09.PDF:PDF}, |
---|
| 47 | owner = {cecile}, |
---|
| 48 | timestamp = {2009.04.30} |
---|
| 49 | } |
---|
| 50 | |
---|
| 51 | @INPROCEEDINGS{6128043, |
---|
| 52 | author = {Yuzhang Feng and Veeramani, A. and Kanagasabai, R. and Seungmin Rho}, |
---|
| 53 | title = {Automatic Service Composition via Model Checking}, |
---|
| 54 | booktitle = {Services Computing Conference (APSCC), 2011 IEEE Asia-Pacific}, |
---|
| 55 | year = {2011}, |
---|
| 56 | pages = {477 -482}, |
---|
| 57 | month = {dec.}, |
---|
| 58 | abstract = {Web service composition is the process of constructing a set of Web |
---|
| 59 | services which, when invoked with some user input in a particular |
---|
| 60 | order, can produce the output to the user's requirements. This paper |
---|
| 61 | proposes a novel model checking based approach for automated service |
---|
| 62 | composition. Modeling services as a set of interleaved processes |
---|
| 63 | in a class of process algebra, we formulate service composition as |
---|
| 64 | model checking asserted on a specific type of property on the model. |
---|
| 65 | We show that, under this formulation, correct composition workflows |
---|
| 66 | can be constructed from the counter-examples provided by model checking. |
---|
| 67 | With a case study on online hotel booking services, we demonstrate |
---|
| 68 | that the proposed approach can support directed a cyclic composition |
---|
| 69 | graphs and the generated composition graphs are automatically verified.}, |
---|
| 70 | doi = {10.1109/APSCC.2011.54}, |
---|
| 71 | file = {:/users/outil/verif/biblio/Composition/AutomaticServiceCompositionViaModelChecking2011.pdf:PDF}, |
---|
| 72 | keywords = {Web service composition;automated service composition;directed acyclic |
---|
| 73 | composition graph;interleaved process;model checking;online hotel |
---|
| 74 | booking services;process algebra;user requirements;Web services;directed |
---|
| 75 | graphs;formal verification;hotel industry;process algebra;} |
---|
| 76 | } |
---|
| 77 | |
---|
| 78 | @INCOLLECTION{springerlink:10.1007/978-3-642-16901-4_15, |
---|
| 79 | author = {Lomuscio, Alessio and Strulo, Ben and Walker, Nigel and Wu, Peng}, |
---|
| 80 | title = {Assume-Guarantee Reasoning with Local Specifications}, |
---|
| 81 | booktitle = {Formal Methods and Software Engineering}, |
---|
| 82 | publisher = {Springer Berlin / Heidelberg}, |
---|
| 83 | year = {2010}, |
---|
| 84 | editor = {Dong, Jin and Zhu, Huibiao}, |
---|
| 85 | volume = {6447}, |
---|
| 86 | series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science}, |
---|
| 87 | pages = {204-219}, |
---|
| 88 | note = {10.1007/978-3-642-16901-4_15}, |
---|
| 89 | abstract = {We investigate assume-guarantee reasoning for global specifications |
---|
| 90 | consisting of conjunctions of local specifications. We present a |
---|
| 91 | sound and complete assume-guarantee rule that permits reasoning about |
---|
| 92 | individual modules for local specifications and draws conclusions |
---|
| 93 | on global specifications. We illustrate our approach with an example |
---|
| 94 | from the field of network congestion control, where different agents |
---|
| 95 | are responsible for controlling packet flow across a shared infrastructure. |
---|
| 96 | In this context, we derive an assume-guarantee rule for system stability, |
---|
| 97 | and show that this rule is valuable to reason about any number of |
---|
| 98 | agents, any initial flow configuration, and any topology of bounded |
---|
| 99 | degree.}, |
---|
| 100 | affiliation = {Department of Computing, Imperial College London, UK}, |
---|
| 101 | file = {:/users/outil/verif/biblio/Composition/AGRwithLocalSpecification2010.pdf:PDF}, |
---|
| 102 | isbn = {978-3-642-16900-7}, |
---|
| 103 | keyword = {Computer Science}, |
---|
| 104 | keywords = {Compositional reasoning}, |
---|
| 105 | url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16901-4_15} |
---|
| 106 | } |
---|
| 107 | |
---|
| 108 | @INPROCEEDINGS{Tripakis201, |
---|
| 109 | author = {Tripakis, Stavros and Andrade, Hugo and Ghosal, Arkadeb and Limaye, |
---|
| 110 | Rhishikesh and Ravindran, Kaushik and Wang, Guoqiang and Yang, Guang |
---|
| 111 | and Kormerup, Jacob and Wong, Ian}, |
---|
| 112 | title = {Correct and non-defensive glue design using abstract models}, |
---|
| 113 | booktitle = {Proceedings of the seventh IEEE/ACM/IFIP international conference |
---|
| 114 | on Hardware/software codesign and system synthesis}, |
---|
| 115 | year = {2011}, |
---|
| 116 | series = {CODES+ISSS '11}, |
---|
| 117 | pages = {59--68}, |
---|
| 118 | address = {New York, NY, USA}, |
---|
| 119 | publisher = {ACM}, |
---|
| 120 | abstract = { Current hardware design practice often relies on integration of components, |
---|
| 121 | some of which may be IP or legacy blocks. While integration eases |
---|
| 122 | design by allowing modularization and component reuse, it is still |
---|
| 123 | done in a mostly ad hoc manner. Designers work with descriptions |
---|
| 124 | of components that are either informal or incomplete (e.g., documents |
---|
| 125 | in English, structural but non-behavioral specifications in IP-XACT) |
---|
| 126 | or too low-level (e.g., HDL code), and have little to no automatic |
---|
| 127 | support for stitching the components together. Providing such support |
---|
| 128 | is the glue design problem. |
---|
| 129 | |
---|
| 130 | This paper addresses this problem using a model-based approach. The |
---|
| 131 | key idea is to use high-level models, such as dataflow graphs, that |
---|
| 132 | enable efficient automated analysis. The analysis can be used to |
---|
| 133 | derive performance properties of the system (e.g., component compatibility, |
---|
| 134 | throughput, etc.), optimize resource usage (e.g., buffer sizes), |
---|
| 135 | and even synthesize low-level code (e.g., control logic). However, |
---|
| 136 | these models are only abstractions of the real system, and often |
---|
| 137 | omit critical information. As a result, the analysis outcomes may |
---|
| 138 | be defensive (e.g., buffers that are too big) or even incorrect (e.g., |
---|
| 139 | buffers that are too small). The paper examines these situations |
---|
| 140 | and proposes a correct and non-defensive design methodology that |
---|
| 141 | employs the right models to explore accurate performance and resource |
---|
| 142 | trade-offs. }, |
---|
| 143 | acmid = {2039382}, |
---|
| 144 | doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2039370.2039382}, |
---|
| 145 | isbn = {978-1-4503-0715-4}, |
---|
[51] | 146 | keywords = {abstraction, data flow, glue design, non-defensiveness, composition}, |
---|
[46] | 147 | location = {Taipei, Taiwan}, |
---|
| 148 | numpages = {10}, |
---|
| 149 | url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2039370.2039382} |
---|
| 150 | } |
---|
| 151 | |
---|
| 152 | @ARTICLE{5374376, |
---|
| 153 | author = {Hao Zheng and Haiqiong Yao and Yoneda, T.}, |
---|
| 154 | title = {Modular Model Checking of Large Asynchronous Designs with Efficient |
---|
| 155 | Abstraction Refinement}, |
---|
| 156 | journal = {Computers, IEEE Transactions on}, |
---|
| 157 | year = {2010}, |
---|
| 158 | volume = {59}, |
---|
| 159 | pages = {561 -573}, |
---|
| 160 | number = {4}, |
---|
| 161 | month = {april }, |
---|
| 162 | abstract = {Divide-and-conquer is essential to address state explosion in model |
---|
| 163 | checking. Verifying each individual component in a system, in isolation, |
---|
| 164 | efficiently requires an appropriate context, which traditionally |
---|
| 165 | is obtained by hand. This paper presents an efficient modular model |
---|
| 166 | checking approach for asynchronous design verification. It is equipped |
---|
| 167 | with a novel abstraction refinement method that can refine a component |
---|
| 168 | abstraction to be accurate enough for successful verification. It |
---|
| 169 | is fully automated, and eliminates the need of finding an accurate |
---|
| 170 | context when verifying each individual component, although such a |
---|
| 171 | context is still highly desirable. This method is also enhanced with |
---|
| 172 | additional state space reduction techniques. The experiments on several |
---|
| 173 | nontrivial asynchronous designs show that this method efficiently |
---|
| 174 | removes impossible behaviors from each component including ones violating |
---|
| 175 | correctness requirements.}, |
---|
| 176 | doi = {10.1109/TC.2009.187}, |
---|
| 177 | file = {:/users/outil/verif/biblio/Composition/ModularMCLargeAsynchronousDesignwithAR2010.pdf:PDF}, |
---|
| 178 | issn = {0018-9340}, |
---|
| 179 | keywords = {abstraction refinement;abstraction refinement method;large asynchronous |
---|
| 180 | designs;modular model checking;state explosion;state space reduction |
---|
[51] | 181 | techniques;formal verification;state-space methods; composition}, |
---|
| 182 | review = {Verification of a whole system by verifying each components. When |
---|
| 183 | verifying each components individually assumptions has to be made |
---|
| 184 | on the environnment ot avoid false counter-examples. Use component |
---|
| 185 | abstraction to over-approximated the environment. This abastraction |
---|
| 186 | must be refined to obtain only the behavior allowed at the interface. |
---|
| 187 | They propose : \begin{itemize} \item to identify and remove unsynchronized |
---|
| 188 | behavior. \item to extend the refinement to more than two components |
---|
| 189 | \end{itemize} Main contribution : Local synchronization detection |
---|
| 190 | method for component based on parallel composition and an AR methof |
---|
| 191 | for modular MC. Circuit class : Asynchronous} |
---|
[46] | 192 | } |
---|
| 193 | |
---|