BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Andrew Gacek

Andrew Gacek appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Software EngineeringLogic in Computer ScienceProgramming Languages

Catalog footprint

What is connected

12works
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

12 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

Efficient Generation of Inductive Validity Cores for Safety Properties

Symbolic model checkers can construct proofs of properties over very complex models. However, the results reported by the tool when a proof succeeds do not generally provide much insight to the user. It is often useful for users to have traceability information related to the proof: which portions of the model were necessary to construct it. This traceability information can be used to diagnose a variety of modeling problems such as overconstrained axioms and underconstrained properties, and can also be used to measure completeness of a set of requirements over a model. In this paper, we present a new algorithm to efficiently compute the inductive validity core (IVC) within a model necessary for inductive proofs of safety properties for sequential systems. The algorithm is based on the UNSAT core support built into current SMT solvers and a novel encoding of the inductive problem to try to generate a minimal inductive validity core. We prove our algorithm is correct, and describe its implementation in the JKind model checker for Lustre models. We then present an experiment in which we benchmark the algorithm in terms of speed, diversity of produced cores, and minimality, with promising results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

From Design Contracts to Component Requirements Verification

During the development and verification of complex airborne systems, a variety of languages and development environments are used for different levels of the system hierarchy. As a result, there may be manual steps to translate requirements between these different environments. This paper presents a tool-supported export technique that translates high-level requirements from the software architecture modeling environment into observers of requirements that can be used for verification in the software component environment. This allows efficient verification that the component designs comply with their high-level requirements. It also provides an automated tool chain supporting formal verification from system requirements down to low-level software requirements that is consistent with certification guidance for avionics systems. The effectiveness of the technique has been evaluated and demonstrated on a medical infusion pump and an aircraft wheel braking system.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

On Implementing Real-time Specification Patterns Using Observers

English language requirements are often used to specify the behavior of complex cyber-physical systems. The process of transforming these requirements to a formal specification language is often challenging, especially if the specification language does not contain constructs analogous to those used in the original requirements. For example, requirements often contain real-time constraints, but many specification languages for model checkers have discrete time semantics. Work in specification patterns helps to bridge these gaps, allowing straightforward expression of common requirements patterns in formal languages. In this work we demonstrate how we support real-time specification patterns in the Assume Guarantee Reasoning Environment (AGREE) using observers. We demonstrate that there are subtle challenges, not mentioned in previous literature, to express real-time patterns accurately using observers. We then demonstrate that these patterns are sufficient to model real-time requirements for a real-world avionics system.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Reasoning about Algebraic Data Types with Abstractions

Reasoning about functions that operate over algebraic data types is an important problem for a large variety of applications. One application of particular interest is network applications that manipulate or reason about complex message structures, such as XML messages. This paper presents a decision procedure for reasoning about algebraic data types using abstractions that are provided by catamorphisms: fold functions that map instances of algebraic data types to values in a decidable domain. We show that the procedure is sound and complete for a class of catamorphisms that satisfy a generalized sufficient surjectivity condition. Our work extends a previous decision procedure that unrolls catamorphism functions until a solution is found. We use the generalized sufficient surjectivity condition to address an incompleteness in the previous unrolling algorithm (and associated proof). We then propose the categories of monotonic and associative catamorphisms, which we argue provide a more intuitive inclusion test than the generalized sufficient surjectivity condition. We use these notions to address two open problems from previous work: (1) we provide a bound, with respect to formula size, on the number of unrollings necessary for completeness, showing that it is linear for monotonic catamorphisms and exponentially small for associative catamorphisms, and (2) we demonstrate that associative catamorphisms can be combined within a formula while preserving completeness. Our combination results extend the set of problems that can be reasoned about using the catamorphism-based approach. We also describe an implementation of the approach, called RADA, which accepts formulas in an extended version of the SMT-LIB 2.0 syntax. The procedure is quite general and is central to the reasoning infrastructure for Guardol, a domain-specific language for reasoning about network guards.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Towards Synthesis from Assume-Guarantee Contracts involving Infinite Theories: A Preliminary Report

In previous work, we have introduced a contract-based real- izability checking algorithm for assume-guarantee contracts involving infinite theories, such as linear integer/real arith- metic and uninterpreted functions over infinite domains. This algorithm can determine whether or not it is possible to con- struct a realization (i.e. an implementation) of an assume- guarantee contract. The algorithm is similar to k-induction model checking, but involves the use of quantifiers to deter- mine implementability. While our work on realizability is inherently useful for vir- tual integration in determining whether it is possible for sup- pliers to build software that meets a contract, it also provides the foundations to solving the more challenging problem of component synthesis. In this paper, we provide an initial synthesis algorithm for assume-guarantee contracts involv- ing infinite theories. To do so, we take advantage of our realizability checking procedure and a skolemization solver for forall-exists formulas, called AE-VAL. We show that it is possible to immediately adapt our existing algorithm towards syn- thesis by using this solver, using a demonstration example. We then discuss challenges towards creating a more robust synthesis algorithm.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Machine-Checked Proofs For Realizability Checking Algorithms

Virtual integration techniques focus on building architectural models of systems that can be analyzed early in the design cycle to try to lower cost, reduce risk, and improve quality of complex embedded systems. Given appropriate architectural descriptions, assume/guarantee contracts, and compositional reasoning rules, these techniques can be used to prove important safety properties about the architecture prior to system construction. For these proofs to be meaningful, each leaf-level component contract must be realizable; i.e., it is possible to construct a component such that for any input allowed by the contract assumptions, there is some output value that the component can produce that satisfies the contract guarantees. We have recently proposed (in [1]) a contract-based realizability checking algorithm for assume/guarantee contracts over infinite theories supported by SMT solvers such as linear integer/real arithmetic and uninterpreted functions. In that work, we used an SMT solver and an algorithm similar to k-induction to establish the realizability of a contract, and justified our approach via a hand proof. Given the central importance of realizability to our virtual integration approach, we wanted additional confidence that our approach was sound. This paper describes a complete formalization of the approach in the Coq proof and specification language. During formalization, we found several small mistakes and missing assumptions in our reasoning. Although these did not compromise the correctness of the algorithm used in the checking tools, they point to the value of machine-checked formalization. In addition, we believe this is the first machine-checked formalization for a realizability algorithm.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Towards Realizability Checking of Contracts using Theories

Virtual integration techniques focus on building architectural models of systems that can be analyzed early in the design cycle to try to lower cost, reduce risk, and improve quality of complex embedded systems. Given appropriate architectural descriptions and compositional reasoning rules, these techniques can be used to prove important safety properties about the architecture prior to system construction. Such proofs build from "leaf-level" assume/guarantee component contracts through architectural layers towards top-level safety properties. The proofs are built upon the premise that each leaf-level component contract is realizable; i.e., it is possible to construct a component such that for any input allowed by the contract assumptions, there is some output value that the component can produce that satisfies the contract guarantees. Without engineering support it is all too easy to write leaf-level components that can't be realized. Realizability checking for propositional contracts has been well-studied for many years, both for component synthesis and checking correctness of temporal logic requirements. However, checking realizability for contracts involving infinite theories is still an open problem. In this paper, we describe a new approach for checking realizability of contracts involving theories and demonstrate its usefulness on several examples.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Resolute: An Assurance Case Language for Architecture Models

Arguments about the safety, security, and correctness of a complex system are often made in the form of an assurance case. An assurance case is a structured argument, often represented with a graphical interface, that presents and supports claims about a system's behavior. The argument may combine different kinds of evidence to justify its top level claim. While assurance cases deliver some level of guarantee of a system's correctness, they lack the rigor that proofs from formal methods typically provide. Furthermore, changes in the structure of a model during development may result in inconsistencies between a design and its assurance case. Our solution is a framework for automatically generating assurance cases based on 1) a system model specified in an architectural design language, 2) a set of logical rules expressed in a domain specific language that we have developed, and 3) the results of other formal analyses that have been run on the model. We argue that the rigor of these automatically generated assurance cases exceeds those of traditional assurance case arguments because of their more formal logical foundation and direct connection to the architectural model.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Reasoning About Higher-Order Relational Specifications

The logic of hereditary Harrop formulas (HH) has proven useful for specifying a wide range of formal systems. This logic includes a form of hypothetical judgment that leads to dynamically changing sets of assumptions and that is key to encoding side conditions and contexts that occur frequently in structural operational semantics (SOS) style presentations. Specifications are often useful in reasoning about the systems they describe. The Abella theorem prover supports such reasoning by explicitly embedding the specification logic within a rich reasoning logic; specifications are then reasoned about through this embedding. However, realizing an induction principle in the face of dynamically changing assumption sets is nontrivial and the original Abella system uses only a subset of the HH specification logic for this reason. We develop a method here for supporting inductive reasoning over all of HH. Our approach takes advantage of a focusing property of HH to isolate the use of an assumption and the ability to finitely characterize the structure of any such assumption in the reasoning logic. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these ideas via several specification and meta-theoretic reasoning examples that have been implemented in an extended version of Abella.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

A two-level logic approach to reasoning about computations

Relational descriptions have been used in formalizing diverse computational notions, including, for example, operational semantics, typing, and acceptance by non-deterministic machines. We therefore propose a (restricted) logical theory over relations as a language for specifying such notions. Our specification logic is further characterized by an ability to explicitly treat binding in object languages. Once such a logic is fixed, a natural next question is how we might prove theorems about specifications written in it. We propose to use a second logic, called a reasoning logic, for this purpose. A satisfactory reasoning logic should be able to completely encode the specification logic. Associated with the specification logic are various notions of binding: for quantifiers within formulas, for eigenvariables within sequents, and for abstractions within terms. To provide a natural treatment of these aspects, the reasoning logic must encode binding structures as well as their associated notions of scope, free and bound variables, and capture-avoiding substitution. Further, to support arguments about provability, the reasoning logic should possess strong mechanisms for constructing proofs by induction and co-induction. We provide these capabilities here by using a logic called G which represents relations over lambda-terms via definitions of atomic judgments, contains inference rules for induction and co-induction, and includes a special generic quantifier. We show how provability in the specification logic can be transparently encoded in G. We also describe an interactive theorem prover called Abella that implements G and this two-level logic approach and we present several examples that demonstrate the efficacy of Abella in reasoning about computations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Nominal Abstraction

Recursive relational specifications are commonly used to describe the computational structure of formal systems. Recent research in proof theory has identified two features that facilitate direct, logic-based reasoning about such descriptions: the interpretation of atomic judgments through recursive definitions and an encoding of binding constructs via generic judgments. However, logics encompassing these two features do not currently allow for the definition of relations that embody dynamic aspects related to binding, a capability needed in many reasoning tasks. We propose a new relation between terms called nominal abstraction as a means for overcoming this deficiency. We incorporate nominal abstraction into a rich logic also including definitions, generic quantification, induction, and co-induction that we then prove to be consistent. We present examples to show that this logic can provide elegant treatments of binding contexts that appear in many proofs, such as those establishing properties of typing calculi and of arbitrarily cascading substitutions that play a role in reducibility arguments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Relating Nominal and Higher-order Abstract Syntax Specifications

Nominal abstract syntax and higher-order abstract syntax provide a means for describing binding structure which is higher-level than traditional techniques. These approaches have spawned two different communities which have developed along similar lines but with subtle differences that make them difficult to relate. The nominal abstract syntax community has devices like names, freshness, name-abstractions with variable capture, and the new-quantifier, whereas the higher-order abstract syntax community has devices like lambda-binders, lambda-conversion, raising, and the nabla-quantifier. This paper aims to unify these communities and provide a concrete correspondence between their different devices. In particular, we develop a semantics-preserving translation from alpha-Prolog, a nominal abstract syntax based logic programming language, to G-, a higher-order abstract syntax based logic programming language. We also discuss higher-order judgments, a common and powerful tool for specifications with higher-order abstract syntax, and we show how these can be incorporated into G-. This establishes G- as a language with the power of higher-order abstract syntax, the fine-grained variable control of nominal specifications, and the desirable properties of higher-order judgments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access