Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Combining static analysis and state transition graphs for verification of event-condition-action systems in the RERS 2012 and 2013 challenges

  • RERS
  • Published:
International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a combination of approaches for the verification of event-condition-action (ECA) systems. The analyzed ECA systems range from structurally simple to structurally complex systems. We address the verification of reachability properties and behavioral properties. Reachability properties are represented by assertions in the program and we determine statically whether an assertion holds for all execution paths. Behavioral properties are represented as linear temporal logic formulas specifying the input/output behavior of the program. Our approach assumes a finite state space. We compare a symbolic analysis with an exhaustive state space exploration and discuss the trade-offs between the approaches in terms of the number of computed states and run-time behavior. All variants compute a state transition graph which can also be passed to an LTL verifier. The variants have a different impact on the number of computed states in the state transition graph which in turn impacts the run-time and memory consumption of subsequent phases. We evaluate the different analysis variants with the RERS benchmarks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Almeida, E.E., Luntz, J.E., Tilbury, D.M.: Event–condition–action systems for reconfigurable logic control. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 4(2), 167–181 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Armando, Alessandro, Mantovani, Jacopo, Platania, Lorenzo: Bounded model checking of software using SMT solvers instead of SAT solvers. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 11(1), 69–83 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bauer, Andreas, Leucker, Martin, Schallhart, Christian: Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification. J. Logic Comput. 20(3), 651–674 (2010)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Théoduloz, G.: Configurable software verification: concretizing the convergence of model checking and program analysis. In: Proc. CAV, LNCS 4590, pp. 504–518. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  5. Beyer, Dirk, Henzinger, Thomas A., Jhala, Ranjit, Majumdar, Rupak: The software model checker Blast: applications to software engineering. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 9(5), 505–525 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beyer, D., Stahlbauer, A.: BDD-based software verification. Applications to event–condition–action systems. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. doi:10.1007/s10009-014-0334-1 (2014)

  7. Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., McMillan, K.L., Dill, D.L., Hwang, L.J.: Symbolic model checking: \(10^{20}\) states and beyond. In: Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 1990. LICS ’90, Proceedings, pp. 428–439, Jun 1990

  8. Claessen, K., Hughes, J.: Quickcheck: a lightweight tool for random testing of Haskell programs. SIGPLAN Not. 35(9), 268–279 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clarke, E., Biere, A., Raimi, R., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking using satisfiability solving. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19(1), 7–34 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Clarke, E.M.: 25 years of model checking. In: The Birth of Model Checking, pp. 1–26. Springer, Berlin (2008)

  11. Cordeiro, L., Fischer, B., Marques-Silva, J.: SMT-based bounded model checking for embedded ANSI-C software. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE ’09, pp. 137–148. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2009)

  12. Duret-Lutz, A.: LTL translation improvements in spot. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Verification and Evaluation of Computer and Communication Systems, VECoS’11, pp. 72–83. British Computer Society, Swinton (2011)

  13. Alexandre, D.L.: LTL translation improvements in Spot 1.0. Int. J. Crit. Comput.-Based Syst. 5(1/2):31–54 (2014)

  14. Holzmann, Gerard J.: The model checker spin. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23(5), 279–295 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Holzmann, G.J.: Parallelizing the spin model checker. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Model Checking Software, SPIN’12, pp. 155–171. Springer, Berlin (2012)

  16. Holzmann, G.J., Bosnacki, D.: Multi-core model checking with spin. In: Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, 2007. IPDPS 2007. IEEE International, pp. 1–8, March (2007)

  17. Howar, F., Isberner, M., Merten, M., Steffen, B., Beyer, D.: The RERS grey-box challenge 2012: analysis of event–condition–action systems. In: Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Technologies for Mastering Change—5th International Symposium, ISoLA 2012, LNCS 4590, pp. 608–614. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  18. Howar, F., Isberner, M., Merten, M., Steffen, B., Beyer, D., Pasareanu, C.S.: Rigorous examination of reactive systems. In: The RERS Challenges 2012 and 2013. Software Tools for Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10009-014-0337-y (2014)

  19. Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: Software model checking. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(4), 21:1–21:54 (2009)

  20. Lerda, F., Sinha, N., Theobald, M.: Symbolic model checking of software. Electron. Notes Theoret. Comput. Sci., 89(3), 480–498 (2003). SoftMC 2003, Workshop on Software Model Checking (Satellite Workshop of CAV ’03)

  21. McCarthy, D., Dayal, U.: The architecture of an active database management system. In: Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD ’89, pp. 215–224. ACM, New York (1989)

  22. Steffen, B., Isberner, M., Naujokat, S., Margaria, T., Geske, M.: Property-driven benchmark generation: synthesizing programs of realistic structure. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. doi:10.1007/s10009-014-0336-z (2014)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

    Markus Schordan & Adrian Prantl

Authors
  1. Markus Schordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adrian Prantl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Schordan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schordan, M., Prantl, A. Combining static analysis and state transition graphs for verification of event-condition-action systems in the RERS 2012 and 2013 challenges. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer 16, 493–505 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-014-0338-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-014-0338-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation