Abstract
Since counterexamples generated by model checking tools are only symptoms of faults in the model, a significant amount of manual work is required in order to locate the fault that is the root cause for the presence of counterexamples in the model. In this paper, we propose an automated method for explaining counterexamples that are symptoms of the occurrence of deadlocks in concurrent systems. Our method is based on an analysis of a set of counterexamples that can be generated by a model checking tool such as SPIN. By comparing the set of counterexamples with the set of correct traces that never deadlock, a number of sequences of actions are extracted that aid the model designer in locating the cause of the occurrence of a deadlock. We first argue that the obvious approach to extract such sequences which is by sequential pattern mining and by contrasting patterns that are typical for the deadlocking counterexample traces but not typical for non-deadlocking traces, fails due to the inherent complexity of the problem. We then propose to extract substrings of specific length that only occur in the set of counterexamples for explaining the occurrence of deadlocks. We use a number of case studies to show the effectiveness of our approach and to compare it with an alternative approach to the counterexample explanation problem.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Agrawal, R., Srikant, R.: Mining sequential patterns. In: 11th International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 1995 (1995)
Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)
Ball, T., Naik, M., Rajamani, S.K.: From symptom to cause: Localizing errors in counterexample traces. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (2003)
Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The SLAM project: Debugging system software via static analysis. In: POPL 2002: Principles of Programming Languages. ACM (2002)
Beer, I., Ben-David, S., Chockler, H., Orni, A., Trefler, R.: Explaining Counterexamples Using Causality. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 94–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Dallmeier, V., Lindig, C., Zeller, A.: Lightweight Defect Localization for Java. In: Gao, X.-X. (ed.) ECOOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3586, pp. 528–550. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
de Jonge, M., Ruys, T.C.: The SpinJa Model Checker. In: van de Pol, J., Weber, M. (eds.) SPIN 2010. LNCS, vol. 6349, pp. 124–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Dong, G., Pei, J.: Sequence Data Mining. Springer (2007)
Goethals, B.: Survey on frequent pattern mining (2003) (manuscript)
Groce, A., Chaki, S., Kroening, D., Strichman, O.: Error explanation with distance metrics. In: International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, STTT (2006)
Groce, A., Visser, W.: What Went Wrong: Explaining Counterexamples. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 121–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Halpern, J., Pearl, J.: Causes and explanations: A structural-model approach. part I: Causes. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (2005)
Holt, R.C.: Some deadlock properties of computer systems. In: ACM Computing Surveys, CSUR (1972)
Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addision-Wesley (2003)
Clarke, E., Kroning, 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)
Lewis, D.: Counterfactuals. Wiley-Blackwell (2001)
Lo, D., Khoo, S., Liu, C.: Efficient mining of iterative patterns for software specification discovery. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (2007)
Nessa, S., Abedin, M., Wong, W.E., Khan, L., Qi, Y.: Software Fault Localization Using N-gram Analysis. In: Li, Y., Huynh, D.T., Das, S.K., Du, D.-Z. (eds.) WASA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5258, pp. 548–559. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Pei, J., Han, J., Mortazavi-Asl, B., Pinto, H., Chen, Q., Dayal, U., Hsu, M.: Prefixspan: Mining sequential patterns efficiently by prefix-projected pattern growth. In: 17th International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2001 (2001)
Pelanek, R.: Benchmarks for explicit model checkers (2006), http://anna.fi.muni.cz/models
Valiant, L.: The Complexity of Computing the Permanent. Theoretical Computer Science (1979)
Wang, C., Yang, Z.-J., Ivančić, F., Gupta, A.: Whodunit? Causal Analysis for Counterexamples. In: Graf, S., Zhang, W. (eds.) ATVA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4218, pp. 82–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Wang, J., Han, J.: Bide: Efficient mining of frequent closed sequences. In: 20th International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2004 (2004)
Yang, G.: The complexity of mining maximal frequent itemsets and maximal frequent patterns. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (2004)
Yang, G.: Computational aspects of mining maximal frequent patterns. Theoretical Computer Science 362(1-3), 63–85 (2006)
Zeller, A.: Why Programs Fail: A Guide to Systematic Debugging. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Leue, S., Tabaei Befrouei, M. (2012). Counterexample Explanation by Anomaly Detection. In: Donaldson, A., Parker, D. (eds) Model Checking Software. SPIN 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7385. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31759-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31759-0_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31758-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31759-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)