Skip to content
Book Open access

Engineering Verified Model Transformations through a Proof-Based Language Workbench

Jul 2026 · Software Language Engineering · pp. 121-133 · 0 citations · 10 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

BCerT is developed, an extension of the Meeduse language workbench originally dedicated to the formal modeling of domain-specific languages, allowing animation and model checking with ProB, as well as theorem proving with Atelier B.

Abstract

Model-driven transformations play a central role in MDE processes, yet their correctness is most often validated through testing or simulation. However, in contexts where critical scenarios may compromise system integrity or certification objectives, stronger guarantees are necessary. This paper investigates how the B method can support transformation engineering through verified formal specifications. To this end, we developed BCerT, an extension of the Meeduse language workbench, originally dedicated to the formal modeling of domain-specific languages. In our approach, transformations are defined as B operations or B events, allowing animation and model checking with ProB, as well as theorem proving with Atelier B. We discuss three complementary specification strategies: (i) a rule-oriented modeling approach optionally controlled with CSP||B; (ii) a property-driven operational B specification in which the transformation is expressed as a relation constrained by invariants; and (iii) an Event-B system capturing the transformation as atomic events focused on the end state. The approach is illustrated through two applications: the verification of a Truth Tables to Binary Decision Diagrams transformation presented at the Transformation Tool Contest, and the development of U2BCerT, a certified transpiler from UML state machines to Event-B.

Read PDF

Similar papers

2026

Formalization of a Realistic Verification-Condition Generator for an Intermediate Verification Language

A formalization of B3 ’s semantics, a VC Generator for the language, and a soundness proof that these two correspond are presented, which is a methodology to split the IVL’s semantic encodings into two layers of abstraction to cover realistic aspects of the semantics, while keeping the proofs amenable to automation.

V. Gladshtein, K. Leino · 0 citations
Conference Open access Jul 2026

Show Me The Money: An Exercise in Proof-Driven Software Understanding

This work demonstrates how the strategic combination of theorem proving and model checking provides a path for delivering robust assurance to legacy systems.

Joseph Tafese, Karthik Nukala, Hassen Saïdi et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

BTOR2-Based C Program Verification via Hardware Model Checking

C2Btor, a method for encoding verification tasks into BTOR2 models that allows C program verification to benefit from advances in hardware model-checking backends, expanding the available capability for counterexample search, inductive safety proving, and word-level transition-system reasoning.

Xinyu Zhang, Runxuan Fang, Ziqun Bao et al. · 0 citations
Book Aug 2026

Can Formal Specifications Be Synthesized from Tests Alone?

This approach uses LLMs to infer candidate specifications solely from test code and dynamic execution traces: the LLM observes only the program interface, selected inputs, and corresponding outputs or state changes, while the implementation internals remain hidden.

Tian-Hai Liu, Maximilian Müller, Tobias Hey et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Can Code Specify a System Precisely Enough to Formally Verify It?

Evaluating the payment workflow of an operational restaurant point-of-sale system, which must keep the register, payment terminal, and payment processor in agreement, finds the core protocol is correct relative to a hand-built, line-cited model under a precisely stated failure model.

J. Dubray · 1 citation

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.