Advertisement

Generating diagnostic information for behavioral preorders

  • Ufuk Celikkan
  • Ranee Cleaveland
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 663)

Abstract

This paper describes a method for generating diagnostic information for the prebisimulation preorder. This information takes the form of a logical formula explaining why a particular process is not larger than the other in the preorder. Our method relies on modifying an algorithm for computing the prebisimulation preorder to save the information needed for generating these distinguishing formulas. As a number of other behavioral preorders may be characterized in terms of prebisimulation preorder, our technique may be used as a basis for computing diagnostic information for these preorders as well.

Keywords

Diagnostic Information Label Transition System Communicate Sequential Process Internal Computation Automatic Verification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Abramsky, S., “Observation Equivalence as a Testing Equivalence”, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 53, (1987), 225–241.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergstra, J.A., and J.W. Klop, “Process Algebra for Synchronous Communication”, Information and Control 60, (1984), 109–137.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bolognesi, T. and E. Brinksma, “Introduction to the ISO Specification Language LOTOS”, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 14, (1987), 25–59.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brookes, S.D., C.A.R. Hoare, and A.W. Roscoe, “A Theory of Communicating Sequential Processes”, Journal of the ACM, vol. 31, no. 3, (1984),560–599.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burch, J.R., E.M. Clarke, K.C McMillan, D.L. Dill, L.J. Hwang. “Symbolic Model Checking: 1020 States and Beyond,” In Proceedings LICS'90, (1990).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Celikkan, U., and R. Cleaveland, “Computing Diagnostic Tests for Incorrect Processes” In Proceedings of the Protocol Specification Testing and Verification, 12, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cleaveland, R., and M. Hennessy, “Testing Equivalence as a Bisimulation Equivalence”, In Proceedings of the Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite-State Syitems, LNCS 407, (1989), 11–23. To appear in Fundamental Aspects of Computing.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cleaveland, R., J. Parrow, and B. Steften, “The Concurrency Workbench”, In Proceedings of the Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite-State Systems, LNCS 407, (1989), 24–37.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cleaveland, R., “On Automatically Distinguishing Inequivalent Processes”, In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computer-Aided Verification, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cleaveland, R., and B. Steffen, “When is ‘Partial’ Adequate? A Logic Based Proof Technique Using Partial Specifications”, In Proceedings LICS'90, (1990).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cleaveland, R., and B. Steffen, “Computing Behavioral Relations, Logically”, In Proceedings of ICALP'90, (1991).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeNicola, R., and M.C.B. Hennessy, “Testing Equivalences for Processes”, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 24, (1984), 83–113.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Godskeen, J.C., K.G. Larsen, and M. Zeeberg, “TAV-Tools for automatic verification”, R89-19, Aalborg University, Denmark.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hennessy, M., and R. Milner, “Algebraic Laws for Nondeterminism and Concurrency”, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, vol. 32, no. 1, (January 1985), 147–161.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hennessy, M., Algebraic Theory of Processes, MIT Press, Boston, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoare, C.A.R., Communicating Sequential Processes, Prentice-Hall, London, 1985.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larsen, K.G., and B. Thomsen, “Compositional Proofs by Partial Specification of Processes”, Report R 87-20, University of Aalborg, July 1987.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milner, R., Communication and Concurrency, Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stirling, C., “Modal Logics for Communicating Systems”, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 49, (1987), 311–347.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walker, D., “Bisimulations and Divergence”, In Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, (1988), 186–192.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ufuk Celikkan
    • 1
  • Ranee Cleaveland
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceN.C. State UniversityRaleigh

Personalised recommendations