Bridging the Gap Between Requirements and Model Analysis : Evaluation on Ten Cyber-Physical Challenge Problems

Formal verfication and simulation are powerful tools to validate requirements against complex systems. [Problem] Requirements are developed in early stages of the software lifecycle and are typically written in ambiguous natural language. There is a gap between such requirements and formal notations that can be used by verification tools, and lack of support for proper association of requirements with software artifacts for verification. [Principal idea] We propose to write requirements in an intuitive, structured natural language with formal semantics, and to support formalization and model/code verification as a smooth, well-integrated process. [Contribution] We have developed an end-to-end, open source requirements analysis framework that checks Simulink models against requirements written in structured natural language. Our framework is built in the Formal Requirements Elicitation Tool (fret); we use fret's requirements language named fretish, and formalization of fretish requirements in temporal logics. Our proposed framework contributes the following features: 1) automatic extraction of Simulink model information and association of fretish requirements with target model signals and components; 2) translation of temporal logic formulas into synchronous dataflow cocospec specifications as well as Simulink monitors, to be used by verification tools; we establish correctness of our translation through extensive automated testing; 3) interpretation of counterexamples produced by verification tools back at requirements level. These features support a tight integration and feedback loop between high level requirements and their analysis. We demonstrate our approach on a major case study: the Ten Lockheed Martin Cyber-Physical, aerospace-inspired challenge problems

Verification of timed circuits with failure directed abstractions

Journal ArticleThis paper presents a method to address state explosion in timed circuit verification by using abstraction directed by the failure model. This method allows us to decompose the verification problem into a set of subproblems, each of which proves that a specific failure condition does not occur. To each subproblem, abstraction is applied using safe transformations to reduce the complexity of verification. The abstraction preserves all essential behaviors conservatively for the specific failure model in the concrete description. Therefore, no violations of the given failure model are missed when only the abstract description is analyzed. An algorithm is also shown to examine the abstract error trace to either find a concrete error trace or report that it is a false negative. This paper presents results using the proposed failure directed abstractions as applied to two large timed circuit designs

Verification of timed circuits with failure-directed abstractions

Journal ArticleAbstract-This paper presents a method to address state explosion in timed-circuit verification by using abstraction directed by the failure model. This method allows us to decompose the verification problem into a set of subproblems, each of which proves that a specific failure condition does not occur. To each subproblem, abstraction is applied using safe transformations to reduce the complexity of verification. The abstraction preserves all essential behaviors conservatively for the specific failure model in the concrete description. Therefore, no violations of the given failure model are missed when only the abstract description is analyzed. An algorithm is also shown to examine the abstract error trace to either find a concrete error trace or report that it is a false negative. This paper presents results using the proposed failure-directed abstractions as applied to several large timed circuit designs

Contracts for System Design

Systems design has become a key challenge and differentiating factor over the last decades for system companies. Aircrafts, trains, cars, plants, distributed telecommunication military or health care systems, and more, involve systems design as a critical step. Complexity has caused system design times and costs to go severely over budget so as to threaten the health of entire industrial sectors. Heuristic methods and standard practices do not seem to scale with complexity so that novel design methods and tools based on a strong theoretical foundation are sorely needed. Model-based design as well as other methodologies such as layered and compositional design have been used recently but a unified intellectual framework with a complete design flow supported by formal tools is still lacking albeit some attempts at this framework such as Platform-based Design have been successfully deployed. Recently an "orthogonal" approach has been proposed that can be applied to all methodologies proposed thus far to provide a rigorous scaffolding for verification, analysis and abstraction/refinement: contractbased design. Several results have been obtained in this domain but a unified treatment of the topic that can help in putting contract-based design in perspective is still missing. This paper intends to provide such treatment where contracts are precisely defined and characterized so that they can be used in design methodologies such as the ones mentioned above with no ambiguity. In addition, the paper provides an important link between interfaces and contracts to show similarities and correspondences. Examples of the use of contracts in design are provided as well as in depth analysis of existing literature.Cet article fait le point sur le concept de contrat pour la conception de systèmes. Les contrats que nous proposons portent, non seulement sur des propriétés de typage de leurs interfaces, mais incluent une description abstraite de comportements. Nous proposons une méta-théorie, ou, si l'on veut, une théorie générique des contrats, qui permet le développement séparé de sous-systèmes. Nous montrons que cette méta-théorie se spécialise en l'une ou l'autre des théories connues

Sciduction: Combining Induction, Deduction, and Structure for Verification and Synthesis

Even with impressive advances in automated formal methods, certain problems in system verification and synthesis remain challenging. Examples include the verification of quantitative properties of software involving constraints on timing and energy consumption, and the automatic synthesis of systems from specifications. The major challenges include environment modeling, incompleteness in specifications, and the complexity of underlying decision problems. This position paper proposes sciduction, an approach to tackle these challenges by integrating inductive inference, deductive reasoning, and structure hypotheses. Deductive reasoning, which leads from general rules or concepts to conclusions about specific problem instances, includes techniques such as logical inference and constraint solving. Inductive inference, which generalizes from specific instances to yield a concept, includes algorithmic learning from examples. Structure hypotheses are used to define the class of artifacts, such as invariants or program fragments, generated during verification or synthesis. Sciduction constrains inductive and deductive reasoning using structure hypotheses, and actively combines inductive and deductive reasoning: for instance, deductive techniques generate examples for learning, and inductive reasoning is used to guide the deductive engines. We illustrate this approach with three applications: (i) timing analysis of software; (ii) synthesis of loop-free programs, and (iii) controller synthesis for hybrid systems. Some future applications are also discussed

The quotient in preorder theories

Seeking the largest solution to an expression of the form Ax 64 B is a common task in several domains of engineering and computer science. This largest solution is commonly called quotient. Across domains, the meanings of the binary operation and the preorder are quite different, yet the syntax for computing the largest solution is remarkably similar. This paper is about finding a common framework to reason about quotients. We only assume we operate on a preorder endowed with an abstract monotonic multiplication and an involution. We provide a condition, called admissibility, which guarantees the existence of the quotient, and which yields its closed form. We call preordered heaps those structures satisfying the admissibility condition. We show that many existing theories in computer science are preordered heaps, and we are thus able to derive a quotient for them, subsuming existing solutions when available in the literature. We introduce the concept of sieved heaps to deal with structures which are given over multiple domains of definition. We show that sieved heaps also have well-defined quotients

The Quotient in Preorder Theories

Seeking the largest solution to an expression of the form A x <= B is a common task in several domains of engineering and computer science. This largest solution is commonly called quotient. Across domains, the meanings of the binary operation and the preorder are quite different, yet the syntax for computing the largest solution is remarkably similar. This paper is about finding a common framework to reason about quotients. We only assume we operate on a preorder endowed with an abstract monotonic multiplication and an involution. We provide a condition, called admissibility, which guarantees the existence of the quotient, and which yields its closed form. We call preordered heaps those structures satisfying the admissibility condition. We show that many existing theories in computer science are preordered heaps, and we are thus able to derive a quotient for them, subsuming existing solutions when available in the literature. We introduce the concept of sieved heaps to deal with structures which are given over multiple domains of definition. We show that sieved heaps also have well-defined quotients.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2020, arXiv:2009.0936

Open architectures for formal reasoning and deductive technologies for software development

The objective of this project is to develop an open architecture for formal reasoning systems. One goal is to provide a framework with a clear semantic basis for specification and instantiation of generic components; construction of complex systems by interconnecting components; and for making incremental improvements and tailoring to specific applications. Another goal is to develop methods for specifying component interfaces and interactions to facilitate use of existing and newly built systems as 'off the shelf' components, thus helping bridge the gap between producers and consumers of reasoning systems. In this report we summarize results in several areas: our data base of reasoning systems; a theory of binding structures; a theory of components of open systems; a framework for specifying components of open reasoning system; and an analysis of the integration of rewriting and linear arithmetic modules in Boyer-Moore using the above framework