Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 1197–1225 | Cite as

Formalised EMFTVM bytecode language for sound verification of model transformations

  • Zheng Cheng
  • Rosemary Monahan
  • James F. Power
Regular Paper


Model-driven engineering is an effective approach for addressing the full life cycle of software development. Model transformation is widely acknowledged as one of its central ingredients. With the increasing complexity of model transformations, it is urgent to develop verification tools that prevent incorrect transformations from generating faulty models. However, the development of sound verification tools is a non-trivial task, due to unimplementable or erroneous execution semantics encoded for the target model transformation language. In this work, we develop a formalisation for the EMFTVM bytecode language by using the Boogie intermediate verification language. It ensures the model transformation language has an implementable execution semantics by reliably prototyping the implementation of the model transformation language. It also ensures the absence of erroneous execution semantics encoded for the target model transformation language by using a translation validation approach.


MDE EMFTVM Boogie Model transformation verification Intermediate verification language 



Zheng Cheng is funded by the Doctoral Teaching scholarship and John & Pat Hume scholarship from Maynooth University and the MONDO (EU ICT-611125) Project. We thank the reviewers for their feedback to improve the representation of this submission.


  1. 1.
    Amrani, M., Lucio, L., Selim, G., Combemale, B., Dingel, J., Vangheluwe, H., Le Traon, Y., Cordy, J.R.: A tridimensional approach for studying the formal verification of model transformations. In: 5th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation. pp. 921–928. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Küster., J.M.: Analysis of model transformations via Alloy. In: 4th Workshop on Model-Driven Engineering, Verification and Validation. pp. 47–56. Nashville, TN, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arendt, T., Biermann, E., Jurack, S., Krause, C., Taentzer, G.: Henshin: advanced concepts and tools for in-place EMF model transformations. In: 13th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 121–135. Springer, Oslo, Norway (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asztalos, M., Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T.: Formal specification and analysis of functional properties of graph rewriting-based model transformation. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab. 23(5), 405–435 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ATLAS Group: Specification of the ATL virtual machine. Tech. rep., Lina & INRIA Nantes (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barnett, M., Chang, B.Y.E., DeLine, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogie: a modular reusable verifier for object-oriented programs. In: 4th International Conference on Formal Methods for Components and Objects, pp. 364–387. Springer, Amsterdam, Netherlands (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barnett, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: The Spec# programming system: an overview. In: 1st International Workshop on Construction and Analysis of Safe, Secure, and Interoperable Smart Devices, pp. 49–69. Springer, Marseille, France (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baudry, B., Ghosh, S., Fleurey, F., France, R., Le Traon, Y., Mottu, J.M.: Barriers to systematic model transformation testing. Commun. ACM 53(6), 139–143 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benelellam, A., Gomez-Llana, A., Tisi, M., Cabot, J.: Distributed model-to-model transformation with ATL on MapReduce. In: 8th International Conference on Software Language Engineering, pp. 37–48. ACM, Pittsburg, USA (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berry, G.: Synchronous design and verification of critical embedded systems using SCADE and Esterel. In: 12th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems, pp. 2–2. Springer, Berlin, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bettini, L.: Implementing Domain-Specific Languages with Xtext and Xtend. Packt Publishing, Birmingham (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bock, C., Cook, S., Rivett, P., Rutt, T., Seidewitz, E., Selic, B., Tolbert, D.: OMG Unified Modeling Language (ver. 2.5). Tech. Rep. formal/2015-03-01 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bornat, R.: Proving pointer programs in Hoare logic. In: International Conference on Mathematics of Program Construction, pp. 102–126. Springer, Ponte de Lima, Portugal (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burgueño, L., Troya, J., Wimmer, M., Vallecillo, A.: Static fault localization in model transformations. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 41(5), 490–506 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Büttner, F., Egea, M., Cabot, J., Gogolla, M.: Verification of ATL transformations using transformation models and model finders. In: 14th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods, pp. 198–213. Springer, Kyoto, Japan (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Calegari, D., Luna, C., Szasz, N., Tasistro, Á.: A type-theoretic framework for certified model transformations. In: 13th Brazilian Symposium on Formal Methods, pp. 112–127. Springer, Natal, Brazil (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Calegari, D., Szasz, N.: Verification of model transformations: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Electron. Notes in Theor. Comput. Sci. 292, 5–25 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chan, K.: Formal proofs for QoS-oriented transformations. In: 10th International Conference Workshops on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing, pp. 41–41. IEEE, Hong Kong, China (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheng, Z., Monahan, R., Power, J.F.: A sound execution semantics for ATL via translation validation. In: 8th International Conference on Model Transformation, pp. 133–148. Springer, L’Aquila, Italy (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheng, Z., Monahan, R., Power, J.F.: Online repository for formalised EMFTVM bytecode language. (2016)
  21. 21.
    Cheng, Z.: Formal Verification of Relational Model Transformations Using an Intermediate Verification Language. Ph.D. thesis, Maynooth University (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Garoche, P., Thirioux, X.: Essay on semantics definition in MDE—an instrumented approach for model verification. J. Softw. 4(9), 943–958 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: 4th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 238–252. ACM, Los Angeles, California (1977)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dahlweid, M., Moskal, M., Santen, T., Tobies, S., Schulte, W.: VCC: Contract-based modular verification of concurrent C. In: 31st International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 429–430. IEEE, Vancouver, British Columbia (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Darvas, Á., Leino, K.R.M.: Practical reasoning about invocations and implementations of pure methods. In: 10th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, pp. 336–351. Springer, Braga, Portugal (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Darvas, Á., Müller, P.: Reasoning about method calls in interface specifications. J. Object Technol. 5(5), 59–85 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: 14th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 337–340. Springer, Budapest, Hungary (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Detlefs, D., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B.: Simplify: a theorem prover for program checking. J. ACM 52(3), 365–473 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Filliâtre, J.C., Paskevich, A.: Why3— where programs meet provers. In: 22nd European Symposium on Programming, pp. 125–128. Springer, Rome, Italy (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Filliâtre, J.C.: Why: A multi-language multi-prover verification tool. Tech. rep., Université Paris Sud (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ge, Y., Barrett, C., Tinelli, C.: Solving quantified verification conditions using satisfiability modulo theories. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 55(1–2), 101–122 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Colouring: execution, debug and analysis of QVT-relations transformations through coloured Petri nets. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(4), 1447–1472 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huth, M., Ryan, M.: Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning About Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jackson, E.K., Levendovszky, T., Balasubramanian, D.: Reasoning about metamodeling with formal specifications and automatic proofs. In: 14th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 653–667. Springer, Wellington, New Zealand (2011)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jackson, D.: Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(2), 256–290 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jouault, F.: The resolve algorithm implemented in the ASM language. (2007)
  39. 39.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: a model transformation tool. Sci. Comput. Program. 72(1–2), 31–39 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Klatt, B.: Xpand: a closer look at the model2text transformation language. (2007)
  41. 41.
    Kleppe, A.G., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lano, K., Clark, T., Kolahdouz-Rahimi, S.: A framework for model transformation verification. Formal Aspects Comput. 27(1), 193–235 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lehner, H., Müller, P.: Formal translation of bytecode into BoogiePL. In: 2nd Workshop on Bytecode Semantics, Verification, Analysis and Transformation, pp. 35–50. Elsevier, Budapest, Hungary (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Leino, K.R.M., Middelkoop, R.: Proving consistency of pure methods and model fields. In: 12th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, pp. 231–245. Springer, York, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Leino, K.R.M., Monahan, R.: Reasoning about comprehensions with first-order SMT solvers. In: 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 615–622. ACM, Hawaii, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Leino, K.R.M.: Dafny: An automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In: 16th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, pp. 348–370. Springer, Dakar, Senegal (2010)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Leino, K.R.M.: This is Boogie 2. Microsoft Research, Redmond, USA (2008)
  48. 48.
    Lúcio, L., Barroca, B., Amaral, V.: A technique for automatic validation of model transformations. In: 13th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 136–150. Springer, Oslo, Norway (2010)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lúcio, L., Vangheluwe, H.: Model transformations to verify model transformations. In: 2nd Workshop on Verification of Model Transformations. Budapest, Hungary (2013)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Manna, Z., McCarthy, J.: Properties of programs and partial function logic. Mach. Intell. 5, 27–38 (1969)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mottu, J., Baudry, B., Traon, Y.L.: Mutation analysis testing for model transformations. In: 2nd European Conference on Model Driven Architecture-Foundations and Applications. pp. 376–390. Springer, Bilbao, Spain (2006)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pnueli, A., Siegel, M., Singerman, E.: Translation validation. In: 4th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 151–166. Springer, London, UK (1998)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Poernomo, I., Terrell, J.: Correct-by-construction model transformations from partially ordered specifications in Coq. In: 12th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods, pp. 56–73. Springer, Shanghai, China (2010)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Poernomo, I.: Proofs-as-model-transformations. In: 1st International Conference on Model Transformation, pp. 214–228. Springer, Zürich, Switzerland (2008)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rahim, L.A., Whittle, J.: A survey of approaches for verifying model transformations. Softw. Syst. Model. 14(2), 1003–1028 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sahin, D., Kessentini, M., Wimmer, M., Deb, K.: Model transformation testing: a bi-level search-based software engineering approach. J. Softw. Evol. Process 27(11), 821–837 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schätz, B.: Verification of model transformations. In: 9th International Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques, pp. 130–142. EASST, Paphos, Cyprus (2010)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Selim, G., Wang, S., Cordy, J., Dingel, J.: Model transformations for migrating legacy models: an industrial case study. In: 8th European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications, pp. 90–101. Springer, Lyngby, Denmark (2012)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Merks, E., Paternostro, M.: EMF: eclipse modeling framework, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, London (2008)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: A modular timed graph transformation language for simulation-based design. Softw. Syst. Model. 12(2), 387–414 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tristan, J., Govereau, P., Morrisett, G.: Evaluating value-graph translation validation for LLVM. In: 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 295–305. ACM, San Jose, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tristan, J., Leroy, X.: A simple, verified validator for software pipelining. In: 37th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 83–92. ACM, Madrid, Spain (2010)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Troya, J., Vallecillo, A.: A rewriting logic semantics for ATL. J. Object Technol. 10(5), 1–29 (2011)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tschannen, J., Furia, C.A., Nordio, M., Meyer, B.: Verifying Eiffel programs with Boogie. In: Computing Research Repository abs/1106.4700 (2011)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Varró, G., Varró, D., Friedl, K.: Adaptive graph pattern matching for model transformations using model-sensitive search plans. In: 1st International Workshop on Graph and Model Transformations, pp. 191–205. Elsevier, Brighton, United Kingdom (2006)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Vépa, É., Bézivin, J., Brunelière, H., Jouault, F.: Measuring model repositories. In: Summary of the 2006 Model Size Metrics Workshop. Springer, Genoa, Italy (2006)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Vignaga, A.: Metrics for measuring ATL model transformations. Tech. rep., Universidad de Chile (2009)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wagelaar, D., Iovino, L., Ruscio, D.D., Pierantonio, A.: Translational semantics of a co-evolution specific language with the EMF transformation virtual machine. In: 5th International Conference on Model Transformation, pp. 192–207. Springer, Prague, Czech Republic (2012)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wagelaar, D., Tisi, M., Cabot, J., Jouault, F.: Towards a general composition semantics for rule-based model transformation. In: 14th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 623–637. Springer, Wellington, New Zealand (2011)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
  71. 71.
    Wagelaar, D.: Using ATL/EMFTVM for import/export of medical data. In: 2nd Software Development Automation Conference. Amsterdam, Netherlands (2014)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schoenboeck, J., Schwinger, W.: Right or wrong? Verification of model transformations using colored Petri nets. In: 9th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, pp. 101–106. Helsinki School of Economics, Orlando, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wu, H., Monahan, R., Power, J.: Exploiting attributed type graphs to generate metamodel instances using an SMT solver. In: 7th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering, pp. 175–182. IEEE, Birmingham, UK (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zheng Cheng
    • 1
  • Rosemary Monahan
    • 1
  • James F. Power
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceMaynooth UniversityMaynoothIreland

Personalised recommendations