Conformance Checking of Real-Time Models

Symbolic Execution vs. Bounded Model Checking
  • Bernhard K. Aichernig
  • Florian Lorber
  • Martin Tappler
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9660)

Abstract

We compare conformance checking based on symbolic execution to conformance checking via bounded model checking. The application context is fault-based test case generation, focusing on real-time faults. The existing bounded model checking approach is performed on timed automata. It supports time-relevant mutation operators and a preprocessing functionality for removing silent transitions and non-determinism. The new symbolic execution approach is performed on timed action systems, which are a novel variant of Back’s action systems augmented by clock variables and real-time semantics. It supports the same set of mutation operators, silent transitions, non-determinism and data variables. We show how to encode timed automata as timed action systems and perform experiments on three variants of a car alarm system, to investigate the influence of silent transitions, non-determinism and data variables. Both approaches rely on the SMT solver Z3.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The research leading to these results has received funding from the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking under grant agreement Nº 332830 and from the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) under grant agreements Nº 838498 for the implementation of the project CRYSTAL, Critical System Engineering Acceleration and Nº 845582 for the project TRUCONF, Trust via cost function driven model based test case generation for non-functional properties of systems of systems.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahrendt, W., de Boer, F.S., Grabe, I.: Abstract object creation in dynamic logic. In: Cavalcanti, A., Dams, D.R. (eds.) FM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5850, pp. 612–627. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aichernig, B.K., Brandl, H., Jöbstl, E., Krenn, W.: Model-based mutation testing of hybrid systems. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Hallerstede, S., Leuschel, M. (eds.) FMCO 2009. LNCS, vol. 6286, pp. 228–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aichernig, B.K., Brandl, H., Jöbstl, E., Krenn, W., Schlick, R., Tiran, S.: Killing strategies for model-based mutation testing. Softw. Test. Verification Reliab. 25, 716–748 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aichernig, B.K., Jöbstl, E., Tiran, S.: Model-based mutation testing via symbolic refinement checking. Sci. Comput. Program. 97, 383–404 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aichernig, B.K., Lorber, F., Ničković, D.: Time for mutants — Model-based mutation testing with timed automata. In: Veanes, M., Viganò, L. (eds.) TAP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7942, pp. 20–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aichernig, B.K., Tappler, M.: Symbolic input-output conformance checking for model-based mutation testing. In: USE (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Albert, E., de Boer, F.S., Hähnle, R., Johnsen, E.B., Laneve, C.: Engineering virtualized services. In: Second Nordic Symposium on Cloud Computing & Internet Technologies, NordiCloud 2013, Oslo, Norway, 1–3 September 2013, pp. 59–63 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Albert, E., de Boer, F.S., Hähnle, R., Johnsen, E.B., Schlatte, R., Tarifa, S.L.T., Wong, Y.H.: Formal modeling and analysis of resource management for cloud architectures: an industrial case study using real-time ABS. Serv. Oriented Comput. Appl. 8(4), 323–339 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A theory of timed automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 126(2), 183–235 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Back, R.-J., Kurki-Suonio, R.: Decentralization of process nets withcentralized control. In: Proceedings of the Second Annual ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 17-19 August 1983, pp. 131–142 (1983)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bérard, B., Petit, A., Diekert, V., Gastin, P.: Characterization of the expressive power of silent transitions in timed automata. Fundam. Inform. 36(2–3), 145–182 (1998)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bjørk, J., de Boer, F.S., Johnsen, E.B., Schlatte, R., Tarifa, S.L.T.: User-defined schedulers for real-time concurrent objects. Innovations Syst. Softw. Eng. (ISSE) 9(1), 29–43 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cadar, C., Sen, K.: Symbolic execution for software testing: three decades later. Commun. ACM 56(2), 82–90 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: Information streams sharing a finite buffer. Inf. Process. Lett. 1(5), 179–180 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fidge, C.J., Wellings, A.J.: An action-based formal model for concurrent real-time systems. Formal Aspects Comput. 9(2), 175–207 (1997)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frantzen, L., Tretmans, J., Willemse, T.A.C.: A symbolic framework for model-based testing. In: Havelund, K., Núñez, M., Roşu, G., Wolff, B. (eds.) FATES 2006 and RV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4262, pp. 40–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gaston, C., Le Gall, P., Rapin, N., Touil, A.: Symbolic execution techniques for test purpose definition. In: Uyar, M.U., Duale, A.Y., Fecko, M.A. (eds.) TestCom 2006. LNCS, vol. 3964, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jaghoori, M.M., Longuet, D., de Boer, F.S., Chothia, T.: Schedulability and compatibility of real time asynchronous objects. In: Real-Time Systems Symposium 2008, pp. 70–79, November 2008Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krichen, M., Tripakis, S.: Conformance testing for real-time systems. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 34(3), 238–304 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kurki-Suonio, R.: Action systems in incremental and aspect-oriented modeling. Distrib. Comput. 16(2–3), 201–217 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larsen, K.G., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: UPPAAL in a nutshell. STTT 1(1–2), 134–152 (1997)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lorber, F., Rosenmann, A., Ničković, D., Aichernig, B.K.: Bounded determinization of timed automata with silent transitions. In: Sankaranarayanan, S., Vicario, E. (eds.) FORMATS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9268, pp. 288–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meng, S., Arbab, F., Aichernig, B.K., Astefanoaei, L., de Boer, F.S., Rutten, J.J.M.M.: Connectors as designs: Modeling, refinement and test case generation. Sci. Comput. Program. 77(7–8), 799–822 (2012)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schlatte, R., Aichernig, B.K., de Boer, F.S., Griesmayer, A., Johnsen, E.B.: Testing concurrent objects with application-specific schedulers. In: Fitzgerald, J.S., Haxthausen, A.E., Yenigun, H. (eds.) ICTAC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5160, pp. 319–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tretmans, J.: Model based testing with labelled transition systems. In: Hierons, R.M., Bowen, J.P., Harman, M. (eds.) FORTEST. LNCS, vol. 4949, pp. 1–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    von Styp, S., Bohnenkamp, H., Schmaltz, J.: A conformance testing relation for symbolic timed automata. In: Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) FORMATS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6246, pp. 243–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wabenhorst, A.: A model of real-time distributed systems. In: PROCOMET 1998, pp. 462–481. Chapman and Hall (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang, T., Sun, J., Liu, Y., Wang, X., Li, S.: Are timed automata bad for a specification language? Language inclusion checking for timed automata. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 310–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Westerlund, T., Plosila, J.: Formal timing model for hardware components. In: Norchip Conference, 2004. Proceedings, pp. 293–296, November 2004Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Bubel, R., de Boer, F.S., Gómez-Zamalloa, M., de Gouw, S., Hähnle, R., Meinke, K., Sindhu, M.A.: Testing abstract behavioral specifications. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. (STTT) 17(1), 107–119 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard K. Aichernig
    • 1
  • Florian Lorber
    • 1
  • Martin Tappler
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Software TechnologyGraz University of TechnologyGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations