Model-checking the preservation of temporal properties upon feature integration

  • Dimitar P. Guelev
  • Mark D. RyanEmail author
  • Pierre Yves Schobbens


Updating a system by adding new features to it is a technique which enables designs and code to be reused. However, adding new features can remove some properties of the system, as well as adding other ones. Model checking can be used to check whether important properties have been lost when a feature was added, but, as is well-known, model checking is computationally expensive. In this paper, we develop a method which avoids the necessity to re-check certain properties of systems when a feature is added. The method provides criteria allowing us to deduce that the feature does not break a given property, and it is computationally simpler to check the criteria than to perform the model checking. The method is sound, but in general it is not complete: it may not be able to conclude that a property holds of a featured system even if it does hold. In the case of safety properties, we give an intuitive explanation of why it is likely to be complete in practice.


Feature Model checking Property preservation State-explosion problem 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amyot D., Logrippo L. (eds): Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems VII. IOS Press (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armoni R., Fix L., Flaisher A., Gerth R., Ginsburg B., Kanza T., Landver A., Mador-Haim S., Singerman E., Tiemeyer A., Vardi M.Y., Zbar Y.: The ForSpec temporal logic: a new temporal property-specification language. In: Proceedings of TACAS’02, LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 296–311. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouma L., Zuidweg J.: Formal analysis of feature interactions by model checking. In: Proceedings First International Workshop on Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems. St. Petersburg, FL, USA (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    du Bousquet L.: Feature interaction detection using testing and model-checking: experience report. In: Proceedings of the Wold Congress on Formal Methods in the Development of Computing Systems, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, vol. 1, pp. 622–641 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calder M., Magill E. (eds.): Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems VI. IOS Press (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calder M., Miller A.: Using SPIN for feature interaction analysis—a case study. In: Proceedings of the 8th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software (SPIN’2001), LNCS, vol. 2057, pp. 143–162. Toronto, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halpern J., Manna Z., Moszkowski B.: A hardware semantics based on temporal intervals. In: Proceedings of ICALP’83, LNCS, vol. 154, pp. 278–291. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huth M.R., Ryan M.D. (2004) Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning about Systems, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laroussinie F., Markey N., Schnoebelen P.: Temporal logic with forgettable past. In: 17th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’02), pp. 383–392. IEEE Computer Society Press (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lichtenstein O., Pnueli A., Zuck L.: The glory of the past. In: Proceedings of the Confenerence on Logic of Programs, LNCS, vol. 193, pp. 196–218. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1985)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manna Z., Pnueli A.: The anchored version of the temporal framework. In: De Bakker J., de Roever W.P., Rozenberg G. (eds.) Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, LNCS, vol. 354, pp. 201–284. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McMillan K.L.: Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer, (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Plath M.C., Ryan M.D.: SFI: a feature integration tool. In: Berghammer R., Lakhnech Y. (eds.) Tool Support for System Specification, Development and Verification, Advances in Computing Science, pp. 201–216. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Plath M.C., Ryan M.D.: Feature integration using a feature construct. Sci Comput Progr (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitar P. Guelev
    • 1
  • Mark D. Ryan
    • 2
    Email author
  • Pierre Yves Schobbens
    • 3
  1. 1.Section of LogicInstitute of Mathematics and InformaticsSofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Institut d’InformatiqueFacultés Universitaires de NamurNamurBelgium

Personalised recommendations