An open extensible tool environment for Event-B

Abstract. We consider modelling indispensable for the development of complex systems. Modelling must be carried out in a formal notation to reason and make meaningful conjectures about a model. But formal modelling of complex systems is a difficult task. Even when theorem provers improve further and get more powerful, modelling will remain difficult. The reason for this that modelling is an exploratory activity that requires ingenuity in order to arrive at a meaningful model. We are aware that automated theorem provers can discharge most of the onerous trivial proof obligations that appear when modelling systems. In this article we present a modelling tool that seamlessly integrates modelling and proving similar to what is offered today in modern integrated development environments for programming. The tool is extensible and configurable so that it can be adapted more easily to different application domains and development methods.

Rodin: an open toolset for modelling and reasoning in Event-B

Event-B is a formal method for system-level modelling and analysis. Key features of Event-B are the use of set theory as a modelling notation, the use of refinement to represent systems at different abstraction levels and the use of mathematical proof to verify consistency between refinement levels. In this article we present the Rodin modelling tool that seamlessly integrates modelling and proving. We outline how the Event-B language was designed to facilitate proof and how the tool has been designed to support changes to models while minimising the impact of changes on existing proofs. We outline the important features of the prover architecture and explain how well-definedness is treated. The tool is extensible and configurable so that it can be adapted more easily to different application domains and development methods

Reasoned modelling critics: turning failed proofs into modelling guidance

The activities of formal modelling and reasoning are closely related. But while the rigour of building formal models brings significant benefits, formal reasoning remains a major barrier to the wider acceptance of formalism within design. Here we propose reasoned modelling critics — an approach which aims to abstract away from the complexities of low-level proof obligations, and provide high-level modelling guidance to designers when proofs fail. Inspired by proof planning critics, the technique combines proof-failure analysis with modelling heuristics. Here, we present the details of our proposal, implement them in a prototype and outline future plans

An incremental development of the Mondex system in Event-B

A development of the Mondex system was undertaken using Event-B and its associated proof tools. An incremental approach was used whereby the refinement between the abstract specification of the system and its detailed design was verified through a series of refinements. The consequence of this incremental approach was that we achieved a very high degree of automatic proof. The essential features of our development are outlined. We also present some modelling and proof guidelines that we found helped us gain a deep understanding of the system and achieve the high degree of automatic proo

A systematic approach to atomicity decomposition in Event-B

Event-B is a state-based formal method that supports a refinement process in which an abstract model is elaborated towards an implementation in a step-wise manner. One weakness of Event-B is that control flow between events is typically modelled implicitly via variables and event guards. While this fits well with Event-B refinement, it can make models involving sequencing of events more difficult to specify and understand than if control flow was explicitly specified. New events may be introduced in Event-B refinement and these are often used to decompose the atomicity of an abstract event into a series of steps. A second weakness of Event-B is that there is no explicit link between such new events that represent a step in the decomposition of atomicity and the abstract event to which they contribute. To address these weaknesses, atomicity decomposition diagrams support the explicit modelling of control flow and refinement relationships for new events. In previous work,the atomicity decomposition approach has been evaluated manually in the development of two large case studies, a multi media protocol and a spacecraft sub-system. The evaluation results helped us to develop a systematic definition of the atomicity decomposition approach, and to develop a tool supporting the approach. In this paper we outline this systematic definition of the approach, the tool that supports it and evaluate the contribution that the tool makes

Refining Nodes and Edges of State Machines

State machines are hierarchical automata that are widely used to structure complex behavioural specifications. We develop two notions of refinement of state machines, node refinement and edge refinement. We compare the two notions by means of examples and argue that, by adopting simple conventions, they can be combined into one method of refinement. In the combined method, node refinement can be used to develop architectural aspects of a model and edge refinement to develop algorithmic aspects. The two notions of refinement are grounded in previous work. Event-B is used as the foundation for our refinement theory and UML-B state machine refinement influences the style of node refinement. Hence we propose a method with direct proof of state machine refinement avoiding the detour via Event-B that is needed by UML-B