Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Lightweight Symbolic Verification of Graph Transformation Systems with Off-the-Shelf Hardware Model Checkers

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Tests and Proofs (TAP 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9762))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We present a novel symbolic bounded model checking approach to test reachability properties of model-driven software implementations. Given a concrete initial state of a software system, a type graph, and a set of graph transformations, which describe the system’s structure and its behavior, the system is tested against a reachability property that is expressed in terms of a graph constraint. Without any user intervention, our approach exploits state-of-the-art model checking technologies successfully used in hardware industry. The efficiency of our approach is demonstrated in two case studies.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Our presentation of the logic follows the one presented for Alloy [13] and Kodkod [26] that in turn are based on Tarski’s exposition of the relational calculus [24].

  2. 2.

    Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF): eclipse.org/modeling/emf/.

  3. 3.

    Note that we do not use Kodkod ’s model finding capabilities but only use it to translate relational logic formulas into propositional formulas.

  4. 4.

    Note that internally integers are stored using the two’s complement representation; hence, with n-bits the integer values in the range \([-2^{n-1},2^{n-1}-1]\) can be represented.

  5. 5.

    Currently, we only support injective graph pattern matching.

  6. 6.

    Available from https://www.eclipse.org/henshin/install.php.

  7. 7.

    Available from http://ecee.colorado.edu/wpmu/iimc/download/.

  8. 8.

    Available from https://sourceforge.net/projects/groove/files/groove/5.5.2/.

References

  1. Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Baresi, L., Spoletini, P.: On the use of alloy to analyze graph transformation systems. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Montanari, U., Ribeiro, L., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4178, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Baudry, B., Ghosh, S., Fleurey, F., France, R.B., Le Traon, Y., Mottu, J.-M.: Barriers to systematic model transformation testing. Commun. ACM 53(6), 139–143 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Biermann, E., Ermel, C., Taentzer, G.: Lifting parallel graph transformation concepts to model transformation based on the eclipse modeling framework. Electron. Commun. ECEASST 26 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Biermann, E., Ermel, C., Taentzer, G.: Formal foundation of consistent EMF model transformations by algebraic graph transformation. Softw. Syst. Model. 11(2), 227–250 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bill, R., Gabmeyer, S., Kaufmann, P., Seidl, M.: Model checking of CTL-extended OCL specifications. In: Combemale, B., Pearce, D.J., Barais, O., Vinju, J.J. (eds.) SLE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8706, pp. 221–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bradley, A.R.: SAT-based model checking without unrolling. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 70–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dijkstra, E.W.: Cooperating sequential processes, ewd 123. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD01xx/EWD123.html

  10. Dijkstra, E.W.: The humble programmer. Commun. ACM 15(10), 859–866 (1972)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall International, Upper saddle River (1985)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Jackson, D.: Automating first-order relational logic. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 130–139. ACM (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jackson, D.: Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(2), 256–290 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. James, P., Moller, F., Nguyen, H.N., Roggenbach, M., Schneider, S.A., Treharne, H.: On modelling and verifying railway interlockings. Tracking Train Lengths Sci. Comput. Program. 96, 315–336 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kastenberg, H., Rensink, A.: Model checking dynamic states in GROOVE. In: Valmari, A. (ed.) SPIN 2006. LNCS, vol. 3925, pp. 299–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. McBurney, D.L., Sleep, M.R.: Graph rewriting as a computational model. In: Yonezawa, A., Ito, T. (eds.) Concurrency: Theory, Language, And Architecture. LNCS, vol. 491, pp. 235–256. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Naur, P., Randell, B. (eds.) Software Engineering: Report of a Conference Sponsored by the NATO Science Committee, Garmisch, Germany, 7–11 October 1968, Brussels, Scientific Affairs Division, NATO. NATO (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Niemann, P., Hilken, F., Gogolla, M., Wille, R.: Assisted generation of frame conditions for formal models. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition, DATE 2015, San Jose, CA, USA, pp. 309–312. EDA Consortium (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Object Management Group OMG. OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Infrastructure V2.4.1, August 2011. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/

  21. Rozenberg, G. (ed.): Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformations. Foundations, vol. 1. World Scientific, Singapore (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Schmidt, A., Varró, D.: CheckVML: a tool for model checking visual modeling languages. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 92–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Sendall, S., Kozaczynski, W.: Model transformation: the heart and soul of model-driven software development. IEEE Softw. 20(5), 42–45 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tarski, A.: On the calculus of relations. J. Symb. Log. 6(3), 73–89 (1941)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Torlak, E.: A Constraint Solver for Software Engineering: Finding Models and Cores of Large Relational Specifications. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2009. AAI0821754

    Google Scholar 

  26. Torlak, E., Jackson, D.: Kodkod: a relational model finder. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 632–647. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Zeller, A.: Why Programs Fail: A Guide to Systematic Debugging, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Security Engineering Group, TU Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

    Sebastian Gabmeyer

  2. Institute for Formal Models and Verification, JKU Linz, Linz, Austria

    Martina Seidl

Authors
  1. Sebastian Gabmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martina Seidl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Gabmeyer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria

    Bernhard K. Aichernig

  2. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden

    Carlo A. Furia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gabmeyer, S., Seidl, M. (2016). Lightweight Symbolic Verification of Graph Transformation Systems with Off-the-Shelf Hardware Model Checkers. In: Aichernig, B., Furia, C. (eds) Tests and Proofs. TAP 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9762. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41135-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41135-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41134-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41135-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation