A model advisor for NuSMV specifications

  • Paolo ArcainiEmail author
  • Angelo Gargantini
  • Elvinia Riccobene
SI: NFM 2010


Among possible model validation techniques able to identify defects early in the system development, model review aims also at determining if a model is of sufficient quality, where quality is measured as the absence of certain faults. In this paper, we tackle the problem of automatic reviewing NuSMV formal specifications by developing a model advisor which helps to assure given model qualities for NuSMV programs. Vulnerabilities and defects a developer can introduce during the modeling activity using NuSMV are expressed as the violation of formal meta-properties. These meta-properties are then mapped to temporal logic formulas, and the NuSMV model checker itself is used as the engine of our model advisor to notify meta-properties violations, so revealing the absence of some quality attributes of the specification. As a proof of concept, we also report the result of applying this review process to several NuSMV specifications.


Model advisor Model review Model checking NuSMV 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The NuSMV website.
  2. 2.
    The ASMETA website (2010)
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    The Xtext website (2010)
  5. 5.
    Arcaini P, Gargantini A, Riccobene E (2010) AsmetaSMV: a way to link high-level ASM models to low-level NuSMV specifications. In: Frappier M, Glässer U, Khurshid S, Laleau R, Reeves S (eds) ABZ 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5977. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 61–74Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arcaini P, Gargantini A, Riccobene E (2010) Automatic review of abstract state machines by meta property verification. In: Muñoz C (ed) Proceedings of the second NASA formal methods symposium (NFM 2010), NASA/CP-2010-216215. Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, April. NASA, pp 4–13Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beer I, Ben-David S, Eisner C, Rodeh Y (1997) Efficient detection of vacuity in ACTL formulas. In: Proceedings of the 9th international computer aided verification conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1254, pp 279–290Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bloem R, Cavada R, Pill I, Roveri M, Tchaltsev A (2007) Rat: a tool for the formal analysis of requirements. In: Damm W, Hermanns H (eds) CAV. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4590. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 263–267Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Börger E, Stärk R (2003) Abstract State Machines: a method for high-level system design and analysis. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cavada R, Cimatti A, Jochim CA, Keighren G, Olivetti E, Pistore M, Roveri M, Tchaltsev A (2010) NuSMV 2.5 user manual.
  11. 11.
    Cimatti A, Clarke E, Giunchiglia E, Giunchiglia F, Pistore M, Roveri M, Sebastiani R, Tacchella A (2002) NuSMV Version 2: an opensource tool for symbolic model checking. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computer-aided verification (CAV 2002), July. LNCS, vol 2404. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gheorghiu M, Gurfinkel A (2006) Vaquot: a tool for vacuity detection. In: Posters & research tools track, FM 2006Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heitmeyer C, Jeffords R, Labaw B (1996) Automated consistency checking of requirements specifications. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 5(3): 231–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim T, Cha SD (2001) Automated structural analysis of SCR-style software requirements specifications using PVS. Softw Test Verif Reliab 11(3): 143–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kupferman O (2006) Sanity checks in formal verification. In: Baier C, Hermanns H (eds) CONCUR. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4137. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 37–51Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kupferman O, Vardi MY (2003) Vacuity detection in temporal model checking. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer (STTT) 4(2): 224–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McMillan KL (1993) Symbolic model checking. Kluwer, NorwellGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Owre S, Rushby JM, Shankar N (1992) PVS: a prototype verification system. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on automated deduction (CADE-11). Springer, London, pp 748–752Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parnas DL (1994) Some theorems we should prove. In: HUG ’93: 6th international workshop on higher order logic theorem proving and its applications. Springer, London, pp 155–162Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prochnow S, Schaefer G, Bell K, von Hanxleden R (2006) Analyzing robustness of UML state machines. In: Workshop on modeling and analysis of real-time and embedded systems (MARTES 06)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Arcaini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Angelo Gargantini
    • 2
  • Elvinia Riccobene
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyUniversità degli Studi di MilanoCremaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’informazione e metodi matematiciUniversità degli Studi di BergamoDalmineItaly

Personalised recommendations