Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Generating Component Interfaces by Integrating Static and Symbolic Analysis, Learning, and Runtime Monitoring

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Verification (ISoLA 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 11245))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Behavioral interfaces describe the safe interactions with a component without exposing its internal variables and computation. As such, they can serve as documentation or formal contracts for black-box components in safety-critical systems. Learning-based generation of interaces relies on learning algorithms for inferring behavioral interfaces from observations, which are in turn checked for correctness by formal analysis techniques. Learning-based interface generation is therefore an interesting target when studying integration and combination of different formal analysis methods. In this paper, which accompanies an invited talk at the ISoLA 2018 track “A Broader View on Verification: From Static to Runtime and Back”, we introduce interpolation and symbolic search for validating inferred interfaces. We discuss briefly how interface validation may utilize information from runtime monitoring.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://github.com/psycopaths/psyco.

  2. 2.

    https://github.com/Learnlib/automatalib.

  3. 3.

    https://github.com/psycopaths/jconstraints.

  4. 4.

    https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2018/results.

References

  1. Alur, R., Cerný, P., Madhusudan, P., Nam, W.: Synthesis of interface specifications for Java classes. In: ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 98–109 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Angluin, D.: Learning regular sets from queries and counterexamples. Inf. Comput. 75(2), 87–106 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Armando, A., Mantovani, J., Platania, L.: Bounded model checking of software using SMT solvers instead of SAT solvers. In: Valmari, A. (ed.) SPIN 2006. LNCS, vol. 3925, pp. 146–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11691617_9

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49059-0_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., McMillan, K.L., Dill, D.L., Hwang, L.-J.: Symbolic model checking: \(10^{20}\) states and beyond. Inf. Comput. 98(2), 142–170 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caso, G.D., Braberman, V., Garbervetsky, D., Uchitel, S.: Enabledness-based program abstractions for behavior validation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 22(3), 25:1–25:46 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Christ, J., Hoenicke, J., Nutz, A.: SMTInterpol: an interpolating SMT solver. In: Donaldson, A., Parker, D. (eds.) SPIN 2012. LNCS, vol. 7385, pp. 248–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31759-0_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Clarke, E., Kroening, D., Lerda, F.: A tool for checking ANSI-C programs. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 168–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24730-2_15

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Coudert, O., Berthet, C., Madre, J.C.: Verification of synchronous sequential machines based on symbolic execution. In: Sifakis, J. (ed.) CAV 1989. LNCS, vol. 407, pp. 365–373. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-52148-8_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Craig, W.: Three uses of Herbrand-Gentzen theorem in relating model theory and proof theory. J. Symb. Comput. 22, 269–285 (1955)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Ge, Y., de Moura, L.: Complete instantiation for quantified formulas in satisfiabiliby modulo theories. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02658-4_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Giannakopoulou, D., Păsăreanu, C.S.: Interface generation and compositional verification in JavaPathfinder. In: Chechik, M., Wirsing, M. (eds.) FASE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5503, pp. 94–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00593-0_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Giannakopoulou, D., Rakamarić, Z., Raman, V.: Symbolic learning of component interfaces. In: Miné, A., Schmidt, D. (eds.) SAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7460, pp. 248–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33125-1_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Godefroid, P., Klarlund, N., Sen, K.: Dart: directed automated random testing. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2005, pp. 213–223. ACM (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: Permissive interfaces. In: European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC) Held Jointly with ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 31–40 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Howar, F., Giannakopoulou, D., Rakamaric, Z.: Hybrid learning: interface generation through static, dynamic, and symbolic analysis. In: ISSTA 2013, pp. 268–279 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Howar, F., Kahsai, T., Gurfinkel, A., Tinelli, C.: Trusting outsourced components in flight critical systems. In: AIAA Infotech@ Aerospace. AIAA (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Howar, F., Steffen, B., Merten, M.: Automata learning with automated alphabet abstraction refinement. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 263–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18275-4_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Isberner, M., Howar, F., Steffen, B.: The TTT algorithm: a redundancy-free approach to active automata learning. In: Bonakdarpour, B., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) RV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8734, pp. 307–322. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11164-3_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Isberner, M., Howar, F., Steffen, B.: The open-source LearnLib - a framework for active automata learning. In: Kroening, D., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV 2015, Part I. LNCS, vol. 9206, pp. 487–495. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Jaffar, J., Murali, V., Navas, J.A., Santosa, A.E.: TRACER: a symbolic execution tool for verification. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 758–766. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31424-7_61

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Jaffar, J., Navas, J.A., Santosa, A.E.: Unbounded symbolic execution for program verification. In: Khurshid, S., Sen, K. (eds.) RV 2011. LNCS, vol. 7186, pp. 396–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29860-8_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Jaffar, J., Santosa, A.E., Voicu, R.: An interpolation method for CLP traversal. In: Gent, I.P. (ed.) CP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5732, pp. 454–469. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04244-7_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Luckow, K., et al.: JDart: a dynamic symbolic analysis framework. In: Chechik, M., Raskin, J.-F. (eds.) TACAS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9636, pp. 442–459. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. McMillan, K.L.: Applying SAT methods in unbounded symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 250–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45657-0_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. McMillan, K.L.: Lazy annotation for program testing and verification. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 104–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14295-6_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Mues, M., Howar, F., Luckow, K.S., Kahsai, T., Rakamaric, Z.: Releasing the PSYCO: using symbolic search in interface generation for Java. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 41(6), 1–5 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Singh, R., Giannakopoulou, D., Păsăreanu, C.: Learning component interfaces with may and must abstractions. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 527–542. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14295-6_45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Wintersteiger, C.M., Hamadi, Y., De Moura, L.: Efficiently solving quantified bit-vector formulas. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 42(1), 3–23 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dortmund University of Technology and Fraunhofer ISST, Dortmund, Germany

    Falk Howar

  2. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA

    Dimitra Giannakopoulou

  3. Dortmund University of Technology, Dortmund, Germany

    Malte Mues

  4. Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park, USA

    Jorge A. Navas

Authors
  1. Falk Howar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimitra Giannakopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Malte Mues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jorge A. Navas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Falk Howar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Tiziana Margaria

  2. TU Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany

    Bernhard Steffen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Howar, F., Giannakopoulou, D., Mues, M., Navas, J.A. (2018). Generating Component Interfaces by Integrating Static and Symbolic Analysis, Learning, and Runtime Monitoring. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds) Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Verification. ISoLA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11245. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03420-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03421-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation