Advertisement

MS-ACO: a multi-stage ant colony optimization to refute complex software systems specified through graph transformation

  • Vahid Rafe
  • Mahsa Darghayedi
  • Einollah Pira
Methodologies and Application
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Model checking is one of the successful techniques in automated verification of software and hardware systems. However, employing this technique for verification of properties such as the safety and liveness requires that all possible states of a system are generated and then the given property is checked. In large and complex systems, generating all states causes the state space explosion problem. Hence, it is possible to refute such properties by searching the state space to find a state in which the given property is violated. Of course, it is possible that detecting such states in complex systems leads to the exhaustive exploration of the state space. Recent researches confirm that using meta-heuristic and evolutionary approaches to intelligently explore a portion of the state space can be a promising idea. Hence, in this paper, we propose an approach based on ant colony optimization algorithm for refuting the safety and liveness properties and also analyzing reachability ones in systems specified formally through graph transformation system. Refutation of liveness and analyzing reachability properties in systems modeled by graph transformations are the prominent advantages of this approach in comparison with the previous approaches. The proposed approach is implemented in GROOVE which is an open source toolset for designing and model checking graph transformation systems. Experimental results show that our proposed approach is faster and it generates shorter counterexamples in comparison with others.

Keywords

Ant colony optimization Model checking State space explosion Graph transformation system 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abowd G, Allen R, Garlan D (1993) Using style to give meaning to software architecture. In: ACM SIGSOFT software engineering notes, vol 18, no. 5. ACM, pp 9–20Google Scholar
  2. Abreu N, Ajmal M, Kokkinogenis Z, Bozorg B (2011) Ant colony optimization [Online]. http://paginas.fe.up.pt/~mac/ensino/docs/DS20102011/Presentations/PopulationalMetaheuristics/ACO_Nuno_Muhammad_Zafeiris_Behdad.pdf. Accessed 18 Jun 2012
  3. Agrawal R, Srikant R (1994) Fast algorithms for mining association rules. In: Proceedings of 20th international conferences on very large data bases, VLDB, vol 1215, pp 487–499Google Scholar
  4. Alba E, Chicano F (2007a) Ant colony optimization for model checking. In: International conference on computer aided systems theory. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 523–530Google Scholar
  5. Alba E, Chicano F (2007b) ACOhg: dealing with huge graphs. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, pp 10–17Google Scholar
  6. Alba E, Chicano F (2007c) Finding safety errors with ACO. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, pp 1066–1073Google Scholar
  7. Alba E, Chicano F (2008) Searching for liveness property violations in concurrent systems with ACO. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, pp 1727–1734Google Scholar
  8. Alba E, Chicano F, Ferreira M, Gomez-Pulido J (2008) Finding deadlocks in large concurrent java programs using genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, pp 1735–1742Google Scholar
  9. Baier C, Katoen JP, Larsen KG (2008) Principles of model checking, vol 2620264. MIT press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Blum C, Roli A (2003) Metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: overview and conceptual comparison. ACM Comput Surv 35(3):268–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chicano F, Francisco M, Ferreira M, Alba E (2011) Comparing metaheuristic algorithms for error detection in java programs. In: International symposium on search based software engineering, vol 6956. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 82–96Google Scholar
  12. Clarke E, McMillan K, Campos S, Hartonas-Garmhausen V (1996) Symbolic model checking. In: International conference on computer aided verification, vol 1102. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 419–422Google Scholar
  13. Courcoubetis C, Vardi M, Wolper P, Yannakakis M (1992) Memory-efficient algorithms for the verification of temporal properties. In: Computer-aided verification, vol 1, issue 2–3. Springer, US, pp 129–142Google Scholar
  14. Dorigo M, Birattari M, Stutzle T (2006) ant colony optimization. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 1(4):28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duarte LM, Foss L, Wagner FR, Heimfarth T (2010) Model checking the ant colony optimization. In: Hinchey M, Kleinjohann B, Kleinjohann L, Lindsay P, Rammig FJ, Timmis J, Wolf M (eds) Distributed, parallel and biologically inspired systems, vol 329. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edelkamp S, Reffel F (1998) OBDDs in heuristic search. In: Annual conference on artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 81–92Google Scholar
  17. Edelkamp S, Lafuente AL, Leue S (2001) Directed explicit model checking with HSF-SPIN. In: Proceedings of the 8th international SPIN workshop on Model checking of software. Springer, New York, pp 57–79Google Scholar
  18. Edelkamp S, Lafuenteand AL, Leue S (2001) Protocol verification with heuristic search. In: AAAI symposium on model based validation of intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  19. Edelkamp S, Leue S, Lafuente AL (2004) Directed explicit-state model checking in the validation of communication protocols. Int J Softw Tools Technol (STTT) 5(2–3):247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edelkamp S, Jabbar S, Lafuente AL (2006) Heuristic search for the analysis of graph transition systems. In: International conference on graph transformation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 414–429Google Scholar
  21. Elsinga JW (2016) On a framework for domain independent heuristics in graph transformation planning. Master’s thesis, University of TwenteGoogle Scholar
  22. Engels G, Hausmann JH, Heckel R, Sauer S (2000) Dynamic meta modeling: a graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in UML. In: International conference on the unified modeling language. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 323–337Google Scholar
  23. Estler HC, Wehrheim H (2011) Heuristic search-based planning for graph transformation systems. KEPS 2011:54Google Scholar
  24. Foster H, Uchitel S, Magee J, Kramer J (2006) LTSA-WS: a tool for model-based verification of web service compositions and choreography. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on software engineering, Shanghai, China, pp 771–774Google Scholar
  25. Francesca G, Santone A, Vaglini G, Villani ML (2011) Ant colony optimization for deadlock detection in concurrent systems. In: 2011 IEEE 35th annual computer software and applications conference. IEEE, pp 108–117Google Scholar
  26. Garlan D, Allen R, Ockerbloom J (1994) Exploiting style in architectural design environments. In: ACM SIGSOFT software engineering notes, vol. 19, no. 5. ACM, pp 175–188Google Scholar
  27. Gaschnig J (1979) Performance measurement and analysis of certain search algorithms. Technical Report. CMU-CS-79-124, Carnegie-Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  28. Ghamarian AH, de Mol M, Rensink A, Zambon E, Zimakova M (2012) Modelling and analysis using GROOVE. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf (STTT) 14(1):15–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Godefroid P (1990) Using partial orders to improve automatic verification methods. In: International conference on computer aided verification. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 176–185Google Scholar
  30. Godefroid P (1997) Model checking for programming languages using Verisoft. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on principles of programming languages. ACM, pp 174–186Google Scholar
  31. Godefroid P, Khurshid S (2002) Exploring very large state spaces using genetic algorithms. In: International conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 266–280Google Scholar
  32. Godefroid P, Wolper P (1993) Using partial orders for the efficient verification of deadlock freedom and safety properties. Formal Methods Syst Des 2(2):149–164CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Godefroid P, Van Leeuwen J, Hartmanis J, Goos G, Wolper P (1996) Partial-order methods for the verification of concurrent systems: an approach to the state-explosion problem, vol 1032. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  34. Groce A, Visser W (2004) Heuristics for model checking Java programs. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf (STTT) 6(4):260–276CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Hausmann JH (2005) Dynamic meta modeling: a semantics description technique for visual modeling techniques. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität PaderbornGoogle Scholar
  36. Heckel R (2006) Graph transformation in a nutshell. Electron Notes Theoret Comput Sci 148(1):187–198MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heckel R, Thöne S (2005) Behavioral refinement of graph transformation-based models. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 127(3):101–111CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Holzmann GJ (1997) The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 23(5):279–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Isenberg T, Steenken D, Wehrheim H (2013) Bounded model checking of graph transformation systems via SMT solving. In: Formal techniques for distributed systems, vol 7892. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 178–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kumazawa T, Yokoyama C, Takimoto M, Kambayashi Y (2016) Ant colony optimization based model checking extended by smell-like pheromone. In: Proceedings of the 9th EAI international conference on bio-inspired information and communications technologies (formerly BIONETICS), pp 214–220Google Scholar
  41. Lafuente AL (2003) Symmetry reduction and heuristic search for error detection in model checking. In: Workshop on model checking and artificial intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  42. Maeoka J, Tanabe Y, Ishikawa F (2016) Depth-first heuristic search for software model checking. In: Computer and information science, vol 614. Springer International Publishing, pp 75–96Google Scholar
  43. Mens T (2006) On the use of graph transformations for model refactoring. In: Generative and transformational techniques in software engineering. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 219–257Google Scholar
  44. Mens T, Van Der Straeten R, D’Hondt M (2006) Detecting and resolving model inconsistencies using transformation dependency analysis. In: International conference on model driven engineering languages and systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 200–214Google Scholar
  45. Naddaf MR, Rafe V (2014) Performance modeling and analysis of software architectures specified through graph transformations. Comput Inform 32(4):797–826MATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Pearl J (2014) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, BurlingtonMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Pelikan M, Goldberg DE, Tsutsui S (2003) Hierarchical bayesian optimization algorithm: toward a new generation of evolutionary algorithms, vol 3. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 2738–2743Google Scholar
  48. Peng H, Tahar S (1998) A survey on compositional verification. Technical Report, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Concordia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  49. Pira E, Rafe V, Nikanjam A (2016) EMCDM: efficient model checking by data mining for verification of complex software systems specified through architectural styles. Appl Soft Comput 49:1185–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pira E, Rafe V, Nikanjam A (2017) Deadlock detection in complex software systems specified through graph transformation using bayesian optimization algorithm. J Syst Softw 131:181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pira E, Rafe V, Nikanjam A (2018) Searching for violation of safety and liveness properties using knowledge discovery in complex systems specified through graph transformations. Inf Softw Technol 97:110–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rafe V (2013) Scenario-driven analysis of systems specified through graph transformations. J Vis Lang Comput 24(2):136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rafe V, Hajvali M (2013) Designing an architectural style for pervasive healthcare systems. J Med Syst 37(2):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rafe V, Rahmani AT (2008) Formal analysis of workflows using UML 2.0 activities and graph transformation systems. In: International colloquium on theoretical aspects of computing. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 305–318Google Scholar
  55. Rafe V, Rahmani AT (2009) Towards automated software model checking using graph transformation systems and Bogor. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 10(8):1093–1105CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. Rafe V, Moradi M, Yousefian R, Nikanjam A (2015) A meta-heuristic solution for automated refutation of complex software systems specified through graph transformations. Appl Soft Comput 33:136–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rensink A (2003) The GROOVE simulator: a tool for state space generation. In: International workshop on applications of graph transformations with industrial relevance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 479–485Google Scholar
  58. Rensink A, Boneva I, Kastenberg H, Staijen T (2010) User manual for the GROOVE tool set. Department of Computer Science, University of Twente, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  59. Roever WP (1998) The need for compositional proof systems: a survey. In: Compositionality: the significant difference. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  60. Schmidt A (2004) Model checking of visual modeling languages. Master’s Thesis, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, HungaryGoogle Scholar
  61. Sivaraja H, Gopalakrishnan G (2003) Random walk based heuristic algorithms for distributed memory model checking. Electron Notes Theoret Comput Sci 89(1):51–67CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. Snippe E (2011) Using heuristic search to solve planning problems in GROOVE. In: 14th Twente student conference on IT. University of TwenteGoogle Scholar
  63. Stern U, Dill D (1995) Improved probabilistic verification by hash compaction. In: Advanced research working conference on correct hardware design and verification methods, vol 987. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 206–224Google Scholar
  64. Stern U, Dill DL (1996) A new scheme for memory-efficient probabilistic verification. In: Formal description techniques IX. Springer, US, pp 333–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Swaroop D (1997) String stability of interconnected systems: an application to platooning in automated highway systems. California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH)Google Scholar
  66. Taentzer G, Ehrig K, Guerra E, Lara JD, Lengyel L, Levendovszky T, Prange U, Varro D, Varro-Gyapay S (2005) Model transformation by graph transformation: a comparative study. In: Proceedings of model transformations in practice workshop, MoDELS conference, Montego Bay, JamaicaGoogle Scholar
  67. Takada K, Takimoto M, Kumazawa T, Kambayashi Y (2017) ACO based model checking extended by smell-like pheromone with hop counts. In: Harmony search algorithm: proceedings of the 3rd international conference on harmony search algorithm, vol 514 (ICHSA 2017). Springer, p 52Google Scholar
  68. Thomas JP (2000) Design and verification of a coordination protocol for cooperating systems. Soft Comput 4(2):130–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thöne S (2005) Dynamic software architectures: a style based modeling and refinement technique with graph transformations. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, and Mathematics, University of PaderbornGoogle Scholar
  70. Valmari A (1988) Error detection by reduced reachability graph generation. In: Proceedings of the 9th European workshop on application and theory of petri nets, pp 95–112Google Scholar
  71. Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biom Bull 1(6):80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wolper P, Leroy D (1993) Reliable hashing without collision detection. In: International conference on computer aided verification. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 59–70Google Scholar
  73. Yang CH (1999) Prioritized model checking. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  74. Yang XS (2010) A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm. In: Nature inspired cooperative strategies for optimization (NICSO 2010), vol 284, pp 65–74Google Scholar
  75. Yang CH, Dill DL (1998) Validation with guided search of the state space. In: Proceedings of the 35th annual design automation conference, pp 599–604Google Scholar
  76. Yousefian R, Rafe V, Rahmani M (2014) A heuristic solution for model checking graph transformation systems. Appl Soft Comput 24:169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yousefian R, Aboutorabi S, Rafe V (2016) A greedy algorithm versus metaheuristic solutions to deadlock detection in graph transformation systems. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 31(1):137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zhu W, Han Y, Zhou Q (2018) Performing CTL model checking via DNA computing. Soft Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3314-7 Google Scholar
  79. Ziegert S (2014) Graph transformation planning via abstraction. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1407.7933Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringArak UniversityArākIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Information Technology and Computer EngineeringAzarbaijan Shahid Madani UniversityTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations