Relational Concurrent Refinement II: Internal Operations and Outputs

Two styles of description arise naturally in formal specification: state-based and behavioural. In state-based notations, a system is characterised by a collection of variables, and their values determine which actions may occur throughout a system history. Behavioural specifications describe the chronologies of actions -- interactions between a system and its environment. The exact nature of such interactions is captured in a variety of semantic models with corresponding notions of refinement; refinement in state based systems is based on the semantics of sequential programs and is modelled relationally. Acknowledging that these viewpoints are complementary, substantial research has gone into combining the paradigms. The purpose of this paper is to do three things. First, we survey recent results linking the relational model of refinement to the process algebraic models. Specifically, we detail how variations in the relational framework lead to relational data refinement being in correspondence with traces-divergences, singleton failures and failures-divergences refinement in a process semantics. Second, we generalise these results by providing a general flexible scheme for incorporating the two main ''erroneous'' concurrent behaviours: deadlock and divergence, into relational refinement. This is shown to subsume previous characterisations. In doing this we derive relational refinement rules for specifications containing both internal operations and outputs that corresponds to failures-divergences refinement. Third, the theory has been formally specified and verified using the interactive theorem prover KIV

Incompleteness of relational simulations in the blocking paradigm

Refinement is the notion of development between formal specifications For specifications given in a relational formalism downward and upward simulations are the standard method to verify that a refinement holds their usefulness based upon their soundness and joint completeness This is known to be true for total relational specifications and has been claimed to hold for partial relational specifications in both the non-blocking and blocking interpretations In this paper we show that downward and upward simulations in the blocking interpretation where domains are guards are not Jointly complete This contradicts earlier claims in the literature We illustrate this with an example (based on one recently constructed by Reeves and Streader) and then construct a proof to show why Joint completeness fails in general (C) 2010 Elsevier B V All rights reserve

LSB - Live and Safe B: Alternative semantics for Event B

We define two lifted, total relation semantics for Event B machines: Safe B for safety-only properties and Live B for liveness properties. The usual Event B proof obligations, Safe, are sufficient to establish Safe B refinement. Satisfying Safe plus a simple additional proof obligation ACT REF is sufficient to establish Live B refinement. The use of lifted, total relations both prevents the ambiguity of the unlifted relational semantics and prevents operations being clairvoyant

Data refinement for true concurrency

The majority of modern systems exhibit sophisticated concurrent behaviour, where several system components modify and observe the system state with fine-grained atomicity. Many systems (e.g., multi-core processors, real-time controllers) also exhibit truly concurrent behaviour, where multiple events can occur simultaneously. This paper presents data refinement defined in terms of an interval-based framework, which includes high-level operators that capture non-deterministic expression evaluation. By modifying the type of an interval, our theory may be specialised to cover data refinement of both discrete and continuous systems. We present an interval-based encoding of forward simulation, then prove that our forward simulation rule is sound with respect to our data refinement definition. A number of rules for decomposing forward simulation proofs over both sequential and parallel composition are developed

Probabilistic Rely-guarantee Calculus

Jones' rely-guarantee calculus for shared variable concurrency is extended to include probabilistic behaviours. We use an algebraic approach which combines and adapts probabilistic Kleene algebras with concurrent Kleene algebra. Soundness of the algebra is shown relative to a general probabilistic event structure semantics. The main contribution of this paper is a collection of rely-guarantee rules built on top of that semantics. In particular, we show how to obtain bounds on probabilities by deriving rely-guarantee rules within the true-concurrent denotational semantics. The use of these rules is illustrated by a detailed verification of a simple probabilistic concurrent program: a faulty Eratosthenes sieve.Comment: Preprint submitted to TCS-QAP

State-based and process-based value passing

State-based and process-based formalisms each come with their own distinct set of assumptions and properties. To combine them in a useful way it is important to be sure of these assumptions in order that the formalisms are combined in ways which have, or which allow, the intended combined properties. Consequently we cannot necessarily expect to take on state-based formalism and one process-based formalism and combine them and get something sensible, especially since the act of combining can have subtle consequences. Here we concentrate on value-passing, how it is treated in each formalism, and how the formalisms can be combined so as to preserve certain properties. Specifically, the aim is to take from the many process-based formalisms definitions that will best fit with our chosen stat-based formalism, namely Z, so that the fit is simple, has no unintended consequences and is as elegant as possible

Flexible refinement

To help make refinement more usable in practice we introduce a general, flexible model of refinement. This is defined in terms of what contexts an entity can appear in, and what observations can be made of it in those contexts. Our general model is expressed in terms of an operational semantics, and by exploiting the well-known isomorphism between state-based relational semantics and event-based labelled transition semantics we were able to take particular models from both the state- and event-based literature, reflect on them and gradually evolve our general model. We are also able to view our general model both as a testing semantics and as a logical theory with refinement as implication. Our general model can used as a bridge between different particular special models and using this bridge we compare the definition of determinism found in different special models. We do this because the reduction of nondeterminism underpins many definitions of refinement found in a variety of special models. To our surprise we find that the definition of determinism commonly used in the process algebra literature to be at odds with determinism as defined in other special models. In order to rectify this situation we return to the intuitions expressed by Milner in CCS and by formalising these intuitions we are able to define determinism in process algebra in such a way that it no longer at odds with the definitions we have taken from other special models. Using our abstract definition of determinism we are able to construct a new model, interactive branching programs, that is an implementable subset of process algebra. Later in the chapter we show explicitly how five special models, taken from the literature, are instances of our general model. This is done simply by fixing the sets of contexts and observations involved. Next we define vertical refinement on our general model. Vertical refinement can be seen both as a generalisation of what, in the literature, has been called action refinement or non-atomic refinement. Alternatively, by viewing a layer as a logical theory, vertical refinement is a theory morphism, formalised as a Galois connection. By constructing a vertical refinement between broadcast processes and interactive branching programs we can see how interactive branching programs can be implemented on a platform providing broadcast communication. But we have been unable to extend this theory morphism to implement all of process algebra using broadcast communication. Upon investigation we show the problem arises with the examples that caused the problem with the definition of determinism on process algebra. Finally we illustrate the usefulness of our flexible general model by formally developing a single entity that contains events that use handshake communication and events that use broadcast communication

A synchronous program algebra: a basis for reasoning about shared-memory and event-based concurrency

This research started with an algebra for reasoning about rely/guarantee concurrency for a shared memory model. The approach taken led to a more abstract algebra of atomic steps, in which atomic steps synchronise (rather than interleave) when composed in parallel. The algebra of rely/guarantee concurrency then becomes an instantiation of the more abstract algebra. Many of the core properties needed for rely/guarantee reasoning can be shown to hold in the abstract algebra where their proofs are simpler and hence allow a higher degree of automation. The algebra has been encoded in Isabelle/HOL to provide a basis for tool support for program verification. In rely/guarantee concurrency, programs are specified to guarantee certain behaviours until assumptions about the behaviour of their environment are violated. When assumptions are violated, program behaviour is unconstrained (aborting), and guarantees need no longer hold. To support these guarantees a second synchronous operator, weak conjunction, was introduced: both processes in a weak conjunction must agree to take each atomic step, unless one aborts in which case the whole aborts. In developing the laws for parallel and weak conjunction we found many properties were shared by the operators and that the proofs of many laws were essentially the same. This insight led to the idea of generalising synchronisation to an abstract operator with only the axioms that are shared by the parallel and weak conjunction operator, so that those two operators can be viewed as instantiations of the abstract synchronisation operator. The main differences between parallel and weak conjunction are how they combine individual atomic steps; that is left open in the axioms for the abstract operator.Comment: Extended version of a Formal Methods 2016 paper, "An algebra of synchronous atomic steps