Researcher profile

Paul C. Attie

Paul C. Attie contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing Formal Languages and Automata Theory Software Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - Baseline

2works

0followers

3topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

preprint2016arXiv

Dynamic Input/Output Automata: a Formal and Compositional Model for Dynamic Systems

We present dynamic I/O automata (DIOA), a compositional model of dynamic systems. In DIOA, automata can be created and destroyed dynamically, as computation proceeds, and an automaton can dynamically change its signature, i.e., the set of actions in which it can participate. DIOA features operators for parallel composition, action hiding, action renaming, a notion of automaton creation, and a notion of behavioral subtyping by means of trace inclusion. DIOA can model mobility, using signature modification, and is hierarchical: a dynamically changing system of interacting automata is itself modeled as a single automaton. We also show that parallel composition, action hiding, action renaming, and (subject to some technical conditions) automaton creation are all monotonic with respect to trace inclusion: if one component is replaced by another whose traces are a subset of the former, then the set of traces of the system as a whole can only be reduced.

preprint2013arXiv

Specification Construction Using Behaviours, Equivalences, and SMT Solvers

We propose a method to write and check a specification including quantifiers using behaviors, i.e., input-output pairs. Our method requires the following input from the user: (1) answers to a finite number of queries, each of which presents some behavior to the user, who responds informing whether the behavior is "correct" or not; and (2) an "equivalence" theory (set of formulae), which represents the users opinion about which pairs of behaviors are equivalent with respect to the specification; and (3) a "vocabulary", i.e., a set of formulae which provide the basic building blocks for the specification to be written. Alternatively, the user can specify a type theory and a simple relational grammar, and our method can generate the vocabulary and equivalence theories. Our method automatically generates behaviors using a satisfiability modulo theory solver. Since writing a specification consists of formalizing ideas that are initially informal, there must, by definition, be at least one "initial" step where an informal notion is formalized by the user in an ad hoc manner. This step is the provision of the equivalence theory and vocabulary; we call it the primitive formalization step. We contend that it is considerably easier to write an equivalence theory and vocabulary than to write a full-blown formal specification from scratch, and we provide experimental evidence for this claim. We also show how vocabularies can be constructed hierarchically, with a specification at one level providing vocabulary material for the next level.