https://web4.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/j.gow/papers/clase05.pdf

Constructing Induction Rules for Deductive Synthesis Proofs

This is a tutorial paper on the tool Uppaal. Its goal is to be a short introduction on the flavor of timed automata implemented in the tool, to present its interface, and to explain how to use the tool. The contribution of the paper is to provide reference examples and modeling patterns.

A Tutorial on UPPAAL

This article proposes a taxonomy of model transformation, based on the discussions of a working group on model transformation of the Dagstuhl seminar on Language Engineering for Model-Driven Software Development. This taxonomy can be used, among others, to help developers in deciding which model transformation language or tool is best suited to carry out a particular model transformation activity.

/pdf/a-taxonomy-of-model-transformation-3cyk0bxs24.pdf

A Taxonomy of Model Transformation

Minimal recursion semantics (MRS) is a framework for computational semantics that is suitable for parsing and generation and that can be implemented in typed feature structure formalisms. We discuss why, in general, a semantic representation with minimal structure is desirable and illustrate how a descriptively adequate representation with a nonrecursive structure may be achieved. MRS enables a simple formulation of the grammatical constraints on lexical and phrasal semantics, including the principles of semantic composition. We have integrated MRS with a broad-coverage HPSG grammar.

/pdf/minimal-recursion-semantics-an-introduction-4hdjxn0v8q.pdf

Minimal Recursion Semantics An Introduction

Pex automatically produces a small test suite with high code coverage for a .NET program. To this end, Pex performs a systematic program analysis (using dynamic symbolic execution, similar to path-bounded model-checking) to determine test inputs for Parameterized Unit Tests. Pex learns the program behavior by monitoring execution traces. Pex uses a constraint solver to produce new test inputs which exercise different program behavior. The result is an automatically generated small test suite which often achieves high code coverage. In one case study, we applied Pex to a core component of the .NET runtime which had already been extensively tested over several years. Pex found errors, including a serious issue.

/pdf/pex-white-box-test-generation-for-net-1kpnw99ssd.pdf

Pex: white box test generation for .NET

Integrating Systems around the User: Combining Isabelle, Maple, and QEPCAD in the Prover's Palette

If you find yourself in a corridor of a standard maze, a sure and easy way to escape is to simply pick the left (or right) wall, and then follow it along its twists and turns and around the dead-ends till you eventually arrive at the exit. But what happens when you cannot tell left from right? What if you cannot tell North from South? What if you cannot judge distances, and have no idea what it means to follow a wall in a given direction? The possibility of escape in these circumstances is suggested in the statement of an unproven theorem given in David Hilbert’s celebrated Foundations of Geometry, in which he effectively claimed that a standard maze could be fully navigated using axioms and concepts based solely on the relations of points lying on lines in a specified order. We discuss our algorithm for this surprisingly challenging version of the maze navigation problem, and our HOL Light verification of its correctness from Hilbert’s axioms.

https://easychair.org/publications/open/bnqW

Compass-free Navigation of Mazes

Suppose we have been sold on the idea that formalised proofs in an LCF system should resemble their written counterparts, and so consist of formulas that only provide signposts for a fully verified proof. To be practical, most of the fully elaborated verification must then be done by way of general purpose proof procedures. Now if these are the only procedures we implement outside the kernel of logical rules, what does the theorem prover look like? We give our account, working from scratch in the ProofPeer theorem prover, making observations about this new setting along the way.

Bootstrapping LCF Declarative Proofs.

The need for rigorous process composition is encountered in many situations pertaining to the development and analysis of complex systems. We discuss the use of Classical Linear Logic (CLL) for correct-by-construction resource-based process composition, with guaranteed deadlock freedom, systematic resource accounting, and concurrent execution. We introduce algorithms to automate the necessary inference steps for binary compositions of processes in parallel, conditionally, and in sequence. We combine decision procedures and heuristics to achieve intuitive and practically useful compositions in an applied setting.

Jacques Fleuriot

Papers

Integrating Systems around the User: Combining Isabelle, Maple, and QEPCAD in the Prover's Palette

Compass-free Navigation of Mazes

Bootstrapping LCF Declarative Proofs.

A Pragmatic, Scalable Approach to Correct-by-construction Process Composition Using Classical Linear Logic Inference

Solving integrals at the method level