From Featured Transition Systems to Modal Transition Systems with Variability Constraints

  • Maurice H. ter Beek
  • Ferruccio Damiani
  • Stefania Gnesi
  • Franco Mazzanti
  • Luca Paolini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9276)


We present an automatic technique to transform a subclass of featured transition systems into modal transition systems with additional sets of variability constraints in the specific format accepted by the variability model checker VMC. Both formal models are widely used in the field of software product line engineering and both come with a dedicated model checker. The transformation serves two purposes. First, it contributes to a better understanding of the fundamental differences between the two approaches, basically concerning the way in which variability constraints are represented (in terms of features and actions, respectively). Second, it paves the way to compare the modelling and analysis of product line behaviour in two different settings.


Product Line Model Checker Label Transition System Feature Expression Feature Diagram 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.


  1. 1.
    Apel, S., Batory, D.S., Kästner, C., Saake, G.: Feature-Oriented Software Product Lines: Concepts and Implementation. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asirelli, P., ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S.: A logical framework to deal with variability. In: Méry, D., Merz, S. (eds.) IFM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6396, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asirelli, P., ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S.: Formal description of variability in product families. In: SPLC, pp. 130–139. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: Modelling and Analysing the Variability in Product Families: Model Checking of Modal Transition SystemsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: A state/event-based model-checking approach for the analysis of abstract system properties. Sci. Comput. Program. 76(2), 119–135 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: From EU projects to a family of model checkers. In: De Nicola, R., Hennicker, R. (eds.) Wirsing Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 8950, pp. 312–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2015) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: Model checking value-passing modal specifications. In: Voronkov, A., Virbitskaite, I. (eds.) PSI 2014. LNCS, vol. 8974, pp. 304–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2015) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ter Beek, M.H., Mazzanti, F.: VMC: recent advances and challenges ahead. In: SPLC, vol. 2, pp. 70–77. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ter Beek, M.H., Mazzanti, F., Sulova, A.: VMC: a tool for product variability analysis. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 450–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Classen, A., Cordy, M., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Schobbens, P.: Formal semantics, modular specification, and symbolic verification of product-line behaviour. Sci. Comput. Program. 80(B), 416–439 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Classen, A., Cordy, M., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Schobbens, P.-Y.: Model checking software product lines with SNIP. STTT 14(5), 589–612 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Classen, A., Cordy, M., Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Raskin, J.-F.: Featured transition systems: foundations for verifying variability-intensive systems and their application to LTL model checking. IEEE TSE 39(8), 1069–1089 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Classen, A., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., Legay, A., Raskin, J.-F.: Model checking lots of systems: efficient verification of temporal properties in software product lines. In: ICSE, pp. 335–344. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cordy, M., Classen, A., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., Legay, A.: ProVeLines: a product line of verifiers for software product lines. In: SPLC, pp. 141–146. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Nicola, R., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Ristori, G.: An action based framework for verifying logical and behavioural properties of concurrent systems. In: Larsen, K.G., Skou, A. (eds.) CAV 1991. LNCS, vol. 575, pp. 37–47. Springer, Heidelberg (1992) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S.: Formal modeling for product families engineering. In: SPLC, pp. 193–202. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fischbein, D., Uchitel, S., Braberman, V.A.: A foundation for behavioural conformance in software product line architectures. In: ROSATEA, pp. 39–48. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: An abstract, on the fly framework for the verification of service-oriented systems. In: Wirsing, M., Hölzl, M. (eds.) SENSORIA. LNCS, vol. 6582, pp. 390–407. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: Modal I/O automata for interface and product line theories. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larsen, K., Thomsen, B.: A modal process logic. In: LICS, pp. 203–210. IEEE (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lauenroth, K., Pohl, K., Töhning, S.: Model checking of domain artifacts in product line engineering. In: ASE, pp. 269–280. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.J.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schaefer, I., Rabiser, R., Clarke, D., Bettini, L., Benavides, D., Botterweck, G., Pathak, A., Trujillo, S., Villela, K.: Software diversity: state of the art and perspectives. STTT 14(5), 477–495 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schobbens, P., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.: Feature diagrams: a survey and a formal semantics. In: RE, pp. 136–145. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thüm, T., Apel, S., Kästner, C., Schaefer, I., Saake, G.: A classification and survey of analysis strategies for software product lines. ACM Comput. Surv. 47(1), 6:1–6:45 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurice H. ter Beek
    • 1
  • Ferruccio Damiani
    • 2
  • Stefania Gnesi
    • 1
  • Franco Mazzanti
    • 1
  • Luca Paolini
    • 2
  1. 1.ISTI–CNRPisaItaly
  2. 2.Università di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations