Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automated Verification of Executable UML Models

  • Conference paper
Formal Methods for Components and Objects (FMCO 2010)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 6957))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We present a fully automated approach to verifying safety properties of Executable UML models (xUML). Our tool chain consists of a model transformation program which translates xUML models to the process algebra mCRL2, followed by symbolic model checking using LTSmin. If a safety violation is found, an error trace is visualised as a UML sequence diagram. As a novel feature, our approach allows safety properties to be specified as UML state machines.

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 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrial, J.-R.: Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Alur, R., Yannakakis, M.: Model checking of hierarchical state machines. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 23(3), 273–303 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: A state/event-based model-checking approach for the analysis of abstract system properties. Science of Computer Programming 76(2), 119–135 (2011)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Behrmann, G., Larsen, K.G., Andersen, H.R., Hulgaard, H., Lind-Nielsen, J.: Verification of hierarchical state/event systems using reusability and compositionality. Formal Methods in System Design 21(2), 225–244 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bergstra, J.A., Klop, J.W.: Process algebra for synchronous communication. Information and Control 60(1-3), 109–137 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Strichman, O., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking. Advances in Computers 58, 118–149 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blom, J., Hessel, A., Jonsson, B., Pettersson, P.: Specifying and generating test cases using observer automata. In: Grabowski, J., Nielsen, B. (eds.) FATES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3395, pp. 125–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Blom, S., van de Pol, J., Weber, M.: LTSmin: Distributed and symbolic reachability. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 354–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Ciardo, G., Lüttgen, G., Miner, A.S.: Exploiting interleaving semantics in symbolic state-space generation. Formal Methods in System Design 31(1), 63–100 (2007)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Cimatti, A., Giunchiglia, F., Mongardi, G., Romano, D., Torielli, F., Traverso, P.: Formal verification of a railway interlocking system using model checking. Formal Aspects of Computing 10(4), 361–380 (1998)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. Journal of the ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Damm, W., Josko, B., Pnueli, A., Votintseva, A.: A discrete-time UML semantics for concurrency and communication in safety-critical applications. Science of Computer Programming 55, 81–155 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Eriksson, L.-H.: Specifying railway interlocking requirements for practical use. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (SAFECOMP 1996). Springer, Heidelberg (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fokkink, W.: Safety criteria for the vital processor interlocking at Hoorn-Kersenboogerd. In: Computers in Railways V (COMPRAIL 1996). Railway Systems and Management, vol. I (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd. Failures-divergence refinement: FDR2 User Manual (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2010: A toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed processes. In: Abdulla, P.A., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) TACAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6605, pp. 372–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Geilen, M.: On the construction of monitors for temporal logic properties. Electr. Notes in Theor. Comp. Sci. 55(2) (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ghazel, M., Toguyéni, A., Yim, P.: State observer for DES under partial observation with timed petri nets. Discrete Event Dynamic Systems 19(2), 137–165 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Lenzini, G., Abbaneo, C., Amendola, A.M., Marmo, P.: An automatic SPIN validation of a safety critical railway control system. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Int. Conf. on Dependable Systems and Networks, pp. 119–124. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Graw, G., Herrmann, P.: Transformation and verification of Executable UML models. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Compositional Verification of UML Models. Electr. Notes in Theor. Comp. Sci, vol. 101, pp. 3–24 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Groote, J.F., Mathijssen, A., Reniers, M.A., Usenko, Y.S., van Weerdenburg, M.: The formal specification language mCRL2. In: Methods for Modelling Software Systems. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 06351 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hansen, H.H., Ketema, J., Luttik, B., Mousavi, M.R., van de Pol, J.: Towards model checking Executable UML specifications in mCRL2. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering 6(1-2), 83–90 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Heidenreich, F., Johannes, J., Karol, S., Seifert, M., Wende, C.: Derivation and refinement of textual syntax for models. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 114–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2009), http://www.emftext.org (last visit: July 4, 2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoare, T.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  26. ISO/IEC. Enhancements to Lotos (E-Lotos), International Standard 15437:2001 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  27. ISO/IEEE. ISO/IEEE 11073-20601: Health infomatics — personal health device communication — Part 20601: Application profile — optimized exchange protocol (April 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Keiren, J.: Modelling session setup of IEEE Std 11073-20601 (2011), Personal communication

    Google Scholar 

  29. KnowGravity. Cassandra/xUML User’s Guide (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kolovos, D.: An Extensible Platform for Specification of Integrated Languages for Model Management. PhD thesis, University of York, United Kingdom (2009), http://www.eclipse.org/gmt/epsilon/ (last visit: July 4, 2011)

  31. Kolovos, D., Rose, L., Paige, R.: The Epsilon Book, http://www.eclipse.org/gmt/epsilon/doc/book/ (last visit: July 4, (2011)

  32. Lafortune, S., Teneketzis, D., Sampath, M., Sengupta, R., Sinnamohideen, K.: Failure diagnosis of dynamic systems: an approach based on discrete event systems. In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference, vol. 3, pp. 2058–2071 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lind-Nielsen, J., Andersen, H.R., Hulgaard, H., Behrmann, G., Kristoffersen, K.J., Larsen, K.G.: Verification of large state/event systems using compositionality and dependency analysis. Formal Methods in System Design 18(1), 5–23 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Mekki, A., Ghazel, M., Toguyeni, A.: Time-constrained systems validation using MDA model transformation. A railway case study. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Modeling and Simulation, MOSIM 2010 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mellor, S.J., Balcer, M.: Executable UML: A foundation for model-driven architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Object Management Group. OMG Unified Modeling Language Superstructure Version 2.2 (February 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Papyrus Developers. Papyrus: Open source tool for graphical UML2 modelling, http://www.papyrusuml.org (last visit: July 4, 2011)

  38. Schneider, F.B.: Enforceable security policies. ACM Transactions on Information and Systems Security 3(1), 30–50 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sheeran, M., Stålmarck, G.: A tutorial on stålmarck’s proof procedure for propositional logic. In: Gopalakrishnan, G.C., Windley, P. (eds.) FMCAD 1998. LNCS, vol. 1522, pp. 82–99. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Sighireanu, M.: LOTOS NT user’s manual. Technical report, INRIA Rhône-Alpes/VASY (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2008), http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/ (last visit: July 4, 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Turner, E., Treharne, H., Schneider, S., Evans, N.: Automatic generation of CSP || B skeletons from xUML models. In: Fitzgerald, J.S., Haxthausen, A.E., Yenigun, H. (eds.) ICTAC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5160, pp. 364–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Winter, K., Robinson, N.J.: Modelling large railway interlockings and model checking small ones. In: ACSC 2003: Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Comp. Sci. Conference, pp. 309–316. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Yeung, W.L., Leung, K.R.P.H., Wang, J., Dong, W.: Improvements towards formalizing UML state diagrams in CSP. In: Proceedings of the 12th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC 2005). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Helle Hvid Hansen, Bas Luttik & MohammadReza Mousavi

  2. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Jeroen Ketema & Jaco van de Pol

  3. University of York, York, England

    Osmar Marchi dos Santos

Authors
  1. Helle Hvid Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeroen Ketema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bas Luttik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. MohammadReza Mousavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jaco van de Pol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Osmar Marchi dos Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Software Technology, Graz University of Technology, 8010, Graz, Austria

    Bernhard K. Aichernig

  2. Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science, CWI, Science Park 123, 1098 XG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Frank S. de Boer

  3. Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9512, 2300 RA, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Marcello M. Bonsangue

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hvid Hansen, H., Ketema, J., Luttik, B., Mousavi, M., van de Pol, J., dos Santos, O.M. (2011). Automated Verification of Executable UML Models. In: Aichernig, B.K., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds) Formal Methods for Components and Objects. FMCO 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6957. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25271-6_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25271-6_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-25270-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-25271-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation