Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constraint-based debugging in probabilistic model checking

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A counterexample in model checking is an error trace that represents a valuable tool for debugging. In Probabilistic Model Checking (PMC), the counterexample generation has a quantitative aspect. A probabilistic counterexa mple is a set of diagnostic paths in which a path formula holds, and whose probability mass violates the probability threshold. Comparing to conventional model checking, debugging and analyzing counterexamples in PMC is a very complex task. In this paper, we propose a debugging method for Markov models described in the probabilistic model checker PRISM by analyzing probabilistic counterexamples. The probabilistic counterexample generated is subjected to a set of assertions, which are employed for detecting incorrect behavior of the model, and thus locating the erroneous transitions contributing to the error. Our method has been implemented and tested on many PRISM models of different case studies. The method shows promising results in terms of execution time as well as its efficiency in locating the erroneous transitions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beer I, Ben-David S, Chockler H, Orni A, Treer R (2012) Explaining counterexamples using causality. Formal Methods Syst Design 40(1):20–40

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Zeller A (1999) Yesterday, my program worked. today, it does not. why? In: ACM symposium on the foundations of software engineering, pp 253–267

  3. Wang C, Yang Z, Ivancic F, Gupta A (2006) Whodunit? causal analysis for counterexamples. In: 4th international symposium, ATVA. LNCS, vol 4218, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 82–95

  4. Groce A (2005) Error Explanation and Fault Localization with Distance Metrics. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

  5. Hansson H, Jonsson B (1994) Logic for reasoning about time and reliability. Formal Asp Comput 6(5):512–535

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Aziz A, Sanwal K, Singhal V, Brayton R (2000) Model-checking continuous-time Markov chains. ACM Trans Comput Log 1(1):162–170

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Baier C, Haverkort B, Hermanns H, Katoen JP (2003) Model checking algorithms for continuous-time Markov chains. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(7):524–541

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Debbi H, Bourahla M (2013) Causal analysis of probabilistic counterexamples. In: Proceedings of the eleventh ACM-IEEE international conference on formal methods and models for codesign (Memocode), pp 77–86

  9. Debbi H (2016) Debugging of markov decision processes (mdps) models. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on causal reasoning for embedded and safety-critical systems, pp 25–39

  10. Wimmer R, Jansen N, Vorpahl A (2013) High-level counterexamples for probabilistic automata. In: Quantitative evaluation of systems (QEST). LNCS, vol 8054, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 39–54

  11. Kleer J, Kurien J (2003) Fundamentals of model-based diagnosis. In: IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol 36, Sciencedirect pp 25–36

  12. Wong WE, Gao R, Li Y, Abreu R, Wotawa F (2016) A survey on software fault localization. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 42(8):707–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nica M (2010) On the Use of Constraints in Automated Program Debugging - From Foundations to Empirical Results. PhD thesis, Graz University of Technology

  14. Friedrich G, Stumptner M, Wotawa F (1999) Model-based diagnosis of hardware designs. Artif Intell 111(1):3–39

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Ferrante J, Ottenstein K, Warren J (1987) The program dependence graph and its use in optimization. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst (TOPLAS) 9:319–349

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Weiser M (1981) Program slicing. In: Proceeding ICSE ’81 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Software engineering, IEEE Press Piscataway, pp 439–449

  17. Millett L, Teitelbaum T (2000) Issues in slicing promela and its applications to model checking, protocol understanding, and simulation. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer 2:443–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hinton A, Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D (2006) Prism: a tool for automatic verification of probabilistic systems. In: Proceedings of TACAS, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 441–444

  19. Aljazzar H, Leitner-Fischer F, Leue S, Simeonov D (2011) Dipro - a tool for probabilistic counterexample generation. In: Proceedings of the 18th international SPIN Workshop. LNCS 6823, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 183–187

  20. Aljazzar H, Leue S (2010) Directed explicit state-space search in the generation of counterexamples for stochastic model checking. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 36(1):37–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Han T, Katoen J (2009) Counterexamples generation in probabilistic model checking. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 35(2):72–86

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Clarke EM (2008) In: The birth of model checking. Springer-Verlag, pp 1–26

  23. Mayer W, Stumptner M, Wieland D, Wotawa F (2000) Can AI help to improve debugging substantially? debugging experiences with value-based models. In: Proceedings of the European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), IOS Press, pp 417–421

  24. Wotawa F, Nica M, Moraru I (2012) Automated debugging based on a constraint model of the program and a test case. J Logic Algebr Program 81(4):390–407

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Abreu R, Hofer B, Perez A, Wotawa F (2015) Using constraints to diagnose faulty spreadsheets. Softw Qual J 23(2):297–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wotawa F (2008) Bridging the gap between slicing and model-based diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE), pp 836–841

  27. Wotawa F (2002) On the relationship between model-based debugging and program slicing. Artif Intell 135:124–143

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Grammatech: https://resources.grammatech.com/

  29. Wisconsin: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/wpis/slicing_tool/

  30. Baah G, Podgurski A, Harrold MJ (2010) The probabilistic program dependence graph and its application to fault diagnosis. IEEE Trans Software Eng 36:528–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gulwani S, Srivastava S, Venkatesan R (2008) Program analysis as constraint solving. In: SIGPLAN Not, vol 43(6). pp 281–292

  32. Keng B, Veneris A (2012) Automated debugging of missing input constraints in a formal verification environment. In: Proceedings of the 12th conference on formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD 2012), IEEE, pp 101–105

  33. Collavizza H, Vinh NL, Rueher M, Devulder S, Gueguen T (2011) A dynamic constraint-based bmc strategy for generating counterexamples. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM symposium on applied computing. SAC ’11, pp 1633–1638

  34. Bekkouche M, Collavizza H, Rueher M (2015) Locfaults: a new flow-driven and constraint-based error localization approach. In: Proceedings of the 30th annual ACM symposium on applied computing. SAC ’15, New York, NY, USA, pp 1773–1780

  35. Abate A, David C, Kesseli P, Kroening D, Polgreen E (2018) Counterexample guided inductive synthesis modulo theories. In: Chockler H, Weissenbacher G (eds) Computer aided verification. Springer, Cham, pp 270–288

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Aljazzar H, Leue S (2009) Generation of counterexamples for model checking of markov decision processes. In: Proceedings of the international conference on quantitative evaluation of systems (QEST), pp 197–206

  37. Halpern J, Pearl J (2001) Causes and explanations: a structural-model approach part i: Causes. In: Proceedings of the 17th UAI, pp 194–202

  38. Chockler H, Halpern JY (2004) Responsibility and blame: a structural model approach. J Artif Intell Res (JAIR) 22(1):93–115

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Wimmer R, Jansen N, Abraham E, Becker B, Katoen J (2012) Minimal critical subsystems for discrete-time markov models. In: TACAS. LNCS, vol 7214, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 299–314

  40. Leitner-Fischer F, Leue S (2013) Probabilistic fault tree synthesis using causality computation. Int J Crit Comput Based Syst 4(2):119–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. PRISM: https://www.prismmodelchecker.org/manual/ThePRISMLanguage/Introduction

  42. Aljazzar H, Leue S (2011) K*: a heuristic search algorithm for finding the k shortest paths. Artif Intell 175(18):2129–2154

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Katoen JP, Khattri M, Zapreev IS (2005) A markov reward model checker. In: Proceedings of QEST. pp 243–244

  44. Polling: http://www.prismmodelchecker.org/casestudies/polling.php

  45. Ibe O, Trivedi K (1990) Stochastic Petri net models of polling systems. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 8:1649–1657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. de Moura L, Bjørner N (2008) Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan CR, Rehof J (eds) Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 337–340

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. NAND: http://www.prismmodelchecker.org//casestudies/nand.php

  48. CSMA: https://www.prismmodelchecker.org/casestudies/csma.php

  49. PRISM: http://www.prismmodelchecker.org/benchmarks/models.php

  50. EGL: https://www.prismmodelchecker.org/tutorial/egl.php

  51. Crowds: https://www.prismmodelchecker.org/casestudies/crowds.php

  52. Zeroconf: https://www.prismmodelchecker.org/casestudies/zeroconf.php

  53. Fischer F, Leue S (2013) Causality checking for complex system models. In: Proceedings of verification, model checking, and abstract interpretation (VMCAI). LNCS 7737, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 248–276

  54. Calinescu R, Češka M, Gerasimou S, Kwiatkowska M, Paoletti N (2018) Efficient synthesis of robust models for stochastic systems. J Syst Softw 143:140–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Chatzieleftheriou G, Katsaros P (2018) Abstract model repair for probabilistic systems. Inf Comput 259:142–160

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. Li X, Li W, Zhang Y, Zhang L (2019) Deepfl: integrating multiple fault diagnosis dimensions for deep fault localization. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on software testing and analysis, pp 169–180

  57. Lou Y, Ghanbari A, Li X, Zhang L, Zhang H, Hao D, Zhang L (2020) Can automated program repair refine fault localization? a unified debugging approach. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on software testing and analysis. ISSTA 2020, pp 75–87

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of M’sila, M’sila, Algeria

    Hichem Debbi

Authors
  1. Hichem Debbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hichem Debbi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Debbi, H. Constraint-based debugging in probabilistic model checking. Computing 105, 321–351 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-022-01130-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-022-01130-0

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Search

Navigation