The theory and practice of refinement-after-hiding

• Main Author: Burton, Jonathan
• Published: University of Newcastle Upon Tyne 2004
• Subjects: 005.1
• Online Access: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.401505

In software or hardware development, we take an abstract view of a process or system - i.e. a specification - and proceed to render it in a more implement able form. The relationship between an implementation and its specification is characterised in the context of formal verification using a notion called refinement: this notion provides a correctness condition which must be met before we can say that a particular implementation is correct with respect to a particular specification. For a notion of refinement to be useful, it should reflect the ways in which we might want to make concrete our abstract specification. In process algebras, such as those used in [28,50,63]' the notion that a process Q implements or refines a process P is based on the idea that Q is more deterministic than P: this means that every behaviour of the implementation must be possible for the specification. Consider the case that we build a (specification) network from a set of (specification) component processes, where communications or interactions between these processes are hidden. The abstract behaviour which con- stitutes these communications or interactions may be implemented using a particular protocol, replication of communication channels to mask possible faults or perhaps even parallel access to data structures to increase perfor- mance. These concrete behaviours will be hidden in the construction of the final implementation network and so the correctness of the final network may be considered using standard notions of refinement. However, we can- not directly verify the correctness of component processes in the general case, precisely because we may have done more than simply increase determinism in the move from specification to implementation component. Standard (pro- cess algebraic) refinement does not, therefore, fully reflect the ways in which we may wish to move from the abstract to the concrete at the level of such components. This has implications both in terms of the state explosion prob- lem and also in terms of verifying in isolation the correctness of a component which may be used in a number of different contexts. We therefore introduce a more powerful notion of refinement, which we shall call refinement-after-hiding: this gives us the power to approach ver- ification compositionally even though the behaviours of an implementation component may not be contained in those of the corresponding specification, provided that the (parts of the) behaviours which are different will be hidden in the construction of the final network. We explore both the theory and practice of this new notion and also present a means for its automatic verifi- cation. Finally, we use the notion of refinement-after-hiding, along with the means of verification, to verify the correctness of an important algorithm for asynchronous communication. The nature of the verification and the results achieved are completely new and quite significant.