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

Michael Leuschel

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

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Logic in Computer ScienceProgramming LanguagesSoftware EngineeringFormal Languages and Automata TheoryArtificial Intelligence

Catalog footprint

What is connected

15works
5topics
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

15 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Fifty Years of Prolog and Beyond

Both logic programming in general, and Prolog in particular, have a long and fascinating history, intermingled with that of many disciplines they inherited from or catalyzed. A large body of research has been gathered over the last 50 years, supported by many Prolog implementations. Many implementations are still actively developed, while new ones keep appearing. Often, the features added by different systems were motivated by the interdisciplinary needs of programmers and implementors, yielding systems that, while sharing the "classic" core language, and, in particular, the main aspects of the ISO-Prolog standard, also depart from each other in other aspects. This obviously poses challenges for code portability. The field has also inspired many related, but quite different languages that have created their own communities. This article aims at integrating and applying the main lessons learned in the process of evolution of Prolog. It is structured into three major parts. Firstly, we overview the evolution of Prolog systems and the community approximately up to the ISO standard, considering both the main historic developments and the motivations behind several Prolog implementations, as well as other logic programming languages influenced by Prolog. Then, we discuss the Prolog implementations that are most active after the appearance of the standard: their visions, goals, commonalities, and incompatibilities. Finally, we perform a SWOT analysis in order to better identify the potential of Prolog, and propose future directions along which Prolog might continue to add useful features, interfaces, libraries, and tools, while at the same time improving compatibility between implementations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Making ProB compatible with SWI-Prolog

Even though the core of the Prolog programming language has been standardized by ISO since 1995, it remains difficult to write complex Prolog programs that can run unmodified on multiple Prolog implementations. Indeed, implementations sometimes deviate from the ISO standard and the standard itself fails to cover many features that are essential in practice. Most Prolog applications thus have to rely on non-standard features, often making them dependent on one particular Prolog implementation and incompatible with others. We examine one such Prolog application: ProB, which has been developed for over 20 years in SICStus Prolog. The article describes how we managed to refactor the codebase of ProB to also support SWI-Prolog, with the goal of verifying ProB's results using two independent toolchains. This required a multitude of adjustments, ranging from extending the SICStus emulation in SWI-Prolog on to better modularizing the monolithic ProB codebase. We also describe notable compatibility issues and other differences that we encountered in the process, and how we were able to deal with them with few major code changes. Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Trace Refinement in B and Event-B

Traces are used to show whether a model complies with the intended behavior. A modeler can use trace checking to ensure the preservation of the model behavior during the refinement process. In this paper, we present a trace refinement technique and tool called BERT that allows designers to ensure the behavioral integrity of high-level traces at the concrete level. The proposed technique is evaluated within the context of the B and Event-B methods on industrial-strength case studies from the automotive domain.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Validation Obligations: A Novel Approach to Check Compliance between Requirements and their Formal Specification

Traditionally, practitioners use formal methods pre-dominately for one half of the quality-assurance process: verification (do we build the software right?). The other half -- validation (do we build the right software?) -- has been given comparatively little attention. While verification is the core of refinement-based formal methods, where each new refinement step must preserve all properties of its abstract model, validation is usually postponed until the latest stages of the development, when models can be automatically executed. Thus mistakes in requirements or in their interpretation are caught too late: usually at the end of the development process. In this paper, we present a novel approach to check compliance between requirements and their formal refinement-based specification during the earlier stages of development. Our proposed approach -- "validation obligations" -- is based on the simple idea that both verification and validation are an integral part of all refinement steps of a system.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On the Performance of Bytecode Interpreters in Prolog

The semantics and the recursive execution model of Prolog make it very natural to express language interpreters in form of AST (Abstract Syntax Tree) interpreters where the execution follows the tree representation of a program. An alternative implementation technique is that of bytecode interpreters. These interpreters transform the program into a compact and linear representation before evaluating it and are generally considered to be faster and to make better use of resources. In this paper, we discuss different ways to express the control flow of interpreters in Prolog and present several implementations of AST and bytecode interpreters. On a simple language designed for this purpose, we evaluate whether techniques best known from imperative languages are applicable in Prolog and how well they perform. Our ultimate goal is to assess which interpreter design in Prolog is the most efficient, as we intend to apply these results to a more complex language. However, we believe the analysis in this paper to be of more general interest.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Prolog for Verification, Analysis and Transformation Tools

This article examines the use of the Prolog language for writing verification, analysis and transformation tools. Guided by experience in teaching and the development of verification tools like ProB or specialisation tools like ECCE and LOGEN, the article presents an assessment of various aspects of Prolog and provides guidelines for using them. The article shows the usefulness of a few key Prolog features. In particular, it discusses how to deal with negation at the level of the object programs being verified or analysed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2017arXiv

Constraint Logic Programming over Infinite Domains with an Application to Proof

We present a CLP(FD)-based constraint solver able to deal with unbounded domains. It is based on constraint propagation, resorting to enumeration if all other methods fail. An important aspect is detecting when enumeration was complete and if this has an impact on the soundness of the result. We present a technique which guarantees soundness in the following way: if the constraint solver finds a solution it is guaranteed to be correct; if the constraint solver fails to find a solution it can either return the result "definitely false" in case it knows enumeration was exhaustive, or "unknown" in case it was aborted. The technique can deal with nested universal and existential quantifiers. It can easily be extended to set comprehensions and other operators introducing new quantified variables. We show applications in data validation and proof.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Knowledge Representation Analysis of Graph Mining

Many problems, especially those with a composite structure, can naturally be expressed in higher order logic. From a KR perspective modeling these problems in an intuitive way is a challenging task. In this paper we study the graph mining problem as an example of a higher order problem. In short, this problem asks us to find a graph that frequently occurs as a subgraph among a set of example graphs. We start from the problem's mathematical definition to solve it in three state-of-the-art specification systems. For IDP and ASP, which have no native support for higher order logic, we propose the use of encoding techniques such as the disjoint union technique and the saturation technique. ProB benefits from the higher order support for sets. We compare the performance of the three approaches to get an idea of the overhead of the higher order support. We propose higher-order language extensions for IDP-like specification languages and discuss what kind of solver support is needed. Native higher order shifts the burden of rewriting specifications using encoding techniques from the user to the solver itself.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Symbolic Reachability Analysis of B through ProB and LTSmin

We present a symbolic reachability analysis approach for B that can provide a significant speedup over traditional explicit state model checking. The symbolic analysis is implemented by linking ProB to LTSmin, a high-performance language independent model checker. The link is achieved via LTSmin's PINS interface, allowing ProB to benefit from LTSmin's analysis algorithms, while only writing a few hundred lines of glue-code, along with a bridge between ProB and C using ZeroMQ. ProB supports model checking of several formal specification languages such as B, Event-B, Z and TLA. Our experiments are based on a wide variety of B-Method and Event-B models to demonstrate the efficiency of the new link. Among the tested categories are state space generation and deadlock detection; but action detection and invariant checking are also feasible in principle. In many cases we observe speedups of several orders of magnitude. We also compare the results with other approaches for improving model checking, such as partial order reduction or symmetry reduction. We thus provide a new scalable, symbolic analysis algorithm for the B-Method and Event-B, along with a platform to integrate other model checking improvements via LTSmin in the future.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Checking Computations of Formal Method Tools - A Secondary Toolchain for ProB

We present the implementation of pyB, a predicate - and expression - checker for the B language. The tool is to be used for a secondary tool chain for data validation and data generation, with ProB being used in the primary tool chain. Indeed, pyB is an independent cleanroom-implementation which is used to double-check solutions generated by ProB, an animator and model-checker for B specifications. One of the major goals is to use ProB together with pyB to generate reliable outputs for high-integrity safety critical applications. Although pyB is still work in progress, the ProB/pyB toolchain has already been successfully tested on various industrial B machines and data validation tasks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Who watches the watchers: Validating the ProB Validation Tool

Over the years, ProB has moved from a tool that complemented proving, to a development environment that is now sometimes used instead of proving for applications, such as exhaustive model checking or data validation. This has led to much more stringent requirements on the integrity of ProB. In this paper we present a summary of our validation efforts for ProB, in particular within the context of the norm EN 50128 and safety critical applications in the railway domain.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Constraint-Based Deadlock Checking of High-Level Specifications

Establishing the absence of deadlocks is important in many applications of formal methods. The use of model checking for finding deadlocks in formal models is often limited. In this paper we propose a constraint-based approach to finding deadlocks employing the ProB constraint solver. We present the general technique, as well as various improvements that had to be performed on ProB's Prolog kernel, such as reification of membership and arithmetic constraints. This work was guided by an industrial case study, where a team from Bosch was modeling a cruise control system. Within this case study, ProB was able to quickly find counter examples to very large deadlock-freedom constraints. In the paper, we also present other successful applications of this new technique. Experiments using SAT and SMT solvers on these constraints were thus far unsuccessful.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access