ethan jackson research in software engineering (rise), microsoft research - redmond

Ethan JacksonResearch in Software Engineering (RiSE),

Microsoft Research - Redmond

An Introduction to FORMULA

Formal Tools for MBD?We wanted to develop a tool for the formal specifying, composition, and analyses of DSLs and model transformations. But what should such a tool look like?

Specification Language for

DSLs

Specification Language for

Model Transformations

Formalization of DSLs

Formalization of Model

Transformations

Module system for

composition

Unifying formalization

for both

Algorithms for DSL analysis

Algorithms for transformation

analysis

Algorithms for “multi-step”

analysis

Language Level

Formal Semantics

Formal Methods

FORMULA

DSLs are ADTs + CLP

Transformations are ADTs + CLP

Module system produces new specs.

With semantic guarantees

First-order formulas over

theories

Finite modeling finding loop over an

SMT solver

Language Level

Formal Semantics

Formal Methods

Abstract Data TypesWe have an order sorted set of infinite alphabets closed under intersection:

Type system is decidable and equivalent to composition of tree-automata.

A free constructor deterministically creates new objects from old objects.

Enumeration and union types allow the specification of more complex data structures.

Nil, PosInteger, NegInteger, Natural, Real, String

Example: HFSM

Subterm sharing means the in-memory data model is much smaller than the printed model.

A model is a finite set of finite terms (trees)

Logic ProgrammingA logic program has a dual nature: It is a constraint system and a declaratively specified executable procedure.

Note the LP language of FORMULA is not Prolog, which generalizes SLD-resolution to a declarative programming model.

A pattern introduces typed variables that range over the contents of an input model…

…and places constraints on those variables.

Example: HFSM

Language features: • Primitive/derived constructors, • Selection operators, • Expressions over union types,• Negation as failure,• Constraints over additional theories• Boolean composition of named queries.

Semantics Of FORMULA LPWe assume the logic program is terminating; this is not currently checked. Under this assumption, FORMULA checks that the logic program has the following behavior:

Input Model

M

Finite Input

Range restricted: Constraints quantify over terms (derived from) input model.

Stratification: Constraints checking for absence of terms due so safely.

Finite Extension: The logic program extends the model by only a finite number of terms

Strata finitely extend model

Reduction with Precise Typing (1)

=======================> at (10,55)CONSTRUCT reach(i.init<37>) where i.init --> i.init by the identity functionFind i<35>: InitialWith local variables i.init<36>: StateSuch that the following equalities hold i<35> = Initial(i.init<36>)

Reduction with Precise Typing (2)CONSTRUCT reach(t.dst<34>) where t.dst --> t.dst by the identity functionFind ~iv0<25>: reach(Any|State) t<26>: TransitionWith local variables s<27>: State t.dst<28>: State t.src<29>: State ~iv5<30>: State ~iv6<31>: Event ~iv7<32>: Event ~iv8<33>: StateSuch that the following equalities hold t.src<29> = s<27> = ~iv5<30> ~iv0<25> = reach(s<27>) t<26> = Transition(~iv5<30>,~iv6<31>,t.dst<28>) = Transition(t.src<29>,~iv7<32>,~iv8<33>) t.dst<28> = ~iv8<33> ~iv6<31> = ~iv7<32>

Expansions of Union Types/Selectors (1)

=======================> at (13,15)QUERY COMPOSITION twoLevelsDepends on twoLevels~0 twoLevels~1Must satisfy ( twoLevels~0 | twoLevels~1 )

Expansions of Union Types/Selectors (2)

=======================> at (13,15)QUERY twoLevels~0Find s<0>: State(…,Container|State(…,Container|FSM)) c<1>: FSMWith local variables s.parent<2>: State(…,Container|FSM) s.parent.parent<3>: FSM ~iv4<4>: Basic ~iv5<5>: Basic ~iv6<6>: BasicSuch that the following equalities hold s.parent.parent<3> = c<1> = FSM(~iv6<6>) s<0> = State(~iv4<4>,s.parent<2>) s.parent<2> = State(~iv5<5>,s.parent.parent<3>)

Expansions of Union Types/Selectors (3)

=======================> at (13,15)QUERY twoLevels~1Find s<7>: State(…,Container|State(…,Container|State)) c<8>: StateWith local variables s.parent<9>: State(Basic|Basic,Container|State) s.parent.parent<10>: State ~iv4<11>: Basic ~iv5<12>: Basic ~iv6<13>: Basic ~iv7<14>: ContainerSuch that the following equalities hold s.parent.parent<10> = c<8> = State(~iv6<13>,~iv7<14>) s<7> = State(~iv4<11>,s.parent<9>) s.parent<9> = State(~iv5<12>,s.parent.parent<10>)

Theories and The Type System

=======================> at (15,15)QUERY isIDRelated~0Find s<19>: State(Basic|Real,Container|Container) sp<20>: State(Basic|Real,Container|Container)With local variables s.id<21>: Real sp.id<22>: Real ~iv4<23>: Container ~iv5<24>: ContainerSuch that the following equalities hold s<19> = State(s.id<21>,~iv4<23>) sp<20> = State(sp.id<22>,~iv5<24>)And the following constraints hold s.id<21> = +(sp.id<22>,1) [Arithmetic]

Additional theories constrain variable types to be a subtype of one of the order sorted alphabets.

Negation-as-Failure

Each fail creates in own “fail scope”. Fail scopes do not share data since they do not create bindings.

=======================> at (14,15)QUERY deadState~0Find s<15>: StateWith local variables ~iv2<16>: Basic ~iv3<17>: ContainerSuch that the following equalities hold s<15> = State(~iv2<16>,~iv3<17>)

FAIL Find ~iv1<18>: reach(Any|State)With local type constraints ~iv2<16>: Basic ~iv3<17>: ContainerSuch that the following equalities hold ~iv1<18> = reach(s<15>) s<15> = State(~iv2<16>,~iv3<17>)

Stratification

Execution order

FORMULA specifications do not depend on order of expressions.

Module System For Composition and Reuse

Domains and ConformanceDomains capture abstraction levels using abstract data-types and logic programs.

Every domain has an (implicitly) define query called conforms. A model belongs to the domain if conforms evaluates to true.

=======================> at (28,8)QUERY COMPOSITION conformsDepends on DHFSM.conformsMust satisfy DHFSM.conforms

TransformationsTransformations are (parameterized) specifications that read an input model and produce an output model.

The “as” operator produces a copy of the specification by prefixing all type declarations with its argument.

Transformations can take n-input models, produce m-output models using p typed parameters.

Type Inference and Term RewritingFORMULA can automatically infer types without full qualification of the renaming path. It can also infer term rewriting rules across renaming paths.

=======================> at (41,37)CONSTRUCT out.Transition(x<33>,y<34>,z<35>) where x --> x by the path replacement function in --> out y --> y by the path replacement function in --> out z --> z by the path replacement function in --> outFind ~iv0<27>: in.Transition ~iv4<28>: ~eWith local variables x<29>: in.State y<30>: in.Event z<31>: in.State e~value<32>: in.EventSuch that the following equalities hold ~iv4<28> = ~e(e~value<32>) ~iv0<27> = in.Transition(x<29>,y<30>,z<31>)

Transformations Know Everything

The Module SystemDomains capture abstraction levels using abstract data-types and logic programs.

Composing Non-functional Requirements

A Platform-Independent Domain

An Implementation Domain

The Mapping Problem

FFT

FFT

FlashIOARM

FlashIO

Assign components to device such that:

Building the Language of Maps

FFT

FFT

FlashIOARM

FlashIO

Renaming plus pseudo-product plus extends provable produces a domain with models that are a superset of the cross-product of the original domains.

Throwing Out The Bad OnesRestriction of mapping provable produces a domain with models that are a subset of all possible platform maps

Use Finite Model Finding To Solve Mapping Problem

Case study with Timing Definition Langauge (TDL): About 250 lines of Formula to specify run-to-completion semantics of TDL scheduling problem.

TDL case study joint work with European Microsoft Innovation Center (EMIC).

Z3 used to enumerate deployments and generate scheduling functions. GUI developed to visualize points in the design space.

GeneralizationThis pattern of composition and model finding can be generalized to allow separate specification and composition of many non-functional constraints.

Composition Theorem

ConclusionsFORMULA provides a formal model for DSL/model transformation specification, composition, and analysis.

It uses correct-by-construction operators to create domains that are related in semantic ways.

Finite model finding is the key formal method used to analyze both domains and transformations.

Formal analysis builds on state-of-the-art Z3 solver.

Questions?

An Introduction to FORMULA