Visual Notation and Patterns for Abstract State Machines

  • Paolo Arcaini
  • Silvia BonfantiEmail author
  • Angelo Gargantini
  • Elvinia Riccobene
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9946)


Formal models are a rigorous way to specify informal system requirements. However, they are not widely used in practice, since they are considered difficult to develop and understand. Visualization is often considered a good means for people to communicate and to get a common understanding. We here make a proposal of a visual notation for Abstract State Machines (ASMs), and we introduce visual trees that visualize ASM transition rules. In addition to these graphical components that are based only on the syntactical structure of the model, we also present visual patterns that permit to visualize part of the behavior of the machine. A tool is also available to graphically represent ASM models using the proposed notation.


Visual Graph Graphical Notation Control Flow Graph Abstract State Machine Conditional Rule 
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.


  1. 1.
    Arcaini, P., Bonfanti, S., Gargantini, A., Mashkoor, A., Riccobene, E.: Formal validation and verification of a medical software critical component. In: Proceedings of MEMOCODE 2015, pp. 80–89. IEEE, September 2015Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mashkoor, A.: The hemodialysis machine case study. In: Butler, M., Schewe, K.-D., Mashkoor, A., Biro, M. (eds.) ABZ 2016. LNCS, vol. 9675, pp. 329–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-33600-8_29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arcaini, P., Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E.: Rigorous development process of a safety-critical system: from ASM models to Java code. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 1–23 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arcaini, P., Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E., Scandurra, P.: A model-driven process for engineering a toolset for a formal method. Softw. Pract. Exp. 41, 155–166 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Börger, E., Stärk, R.: Abstract State Machines: A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bryant, B.R., Gray, J., Mernik, M., Clarke, P.J., France, R.B., Karsai, G.: Challenges and directions in formalizing the semantics of modeling languages. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 8(2), 225–253 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dick, J., Loubersac, J.: Integrating structured and formal methods: a visual approach to VDM. In: Lamsweerde, A., Fugetta, A. (eds.) ESEC 1991. LNCS, vol. 550, pp. 37–59. Springer, Heidelberg (1991). doi: 10.1007/3540547428_42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dulac, N., Viguier, T., Leveson, N., Storey, M.-A.: On the use of visualization in formal requirements specification. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 71–80. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E.: ViBBA: a toolbox for automatic model driven animation. In: Proceedings of SIMVIS 2005, pp. 101–114. SCS Publishing House (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E., Scandurra, P.: A metamodel-based language and a simulation engine for Abstract State Machines. J. UCS 14(12), 1949–1983 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glässer, U., Gotzhein, R., Prinz, A.: The formal semantics of SDL-2000: status and perspectives. Comput. Netw. 42(3), 343–358 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harel, D., Politi, M.: Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, S.-K., Carrington, D.: Visualization of formal specifications. In: Proceedings of APSEC 1999, pp. 102–109. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kraemer, F.A., Sltten, V., Herrmann, P.: Tool support for the rapid composition, analysis and implementation of reactive services. J. Syst. Softw. 82(12), 2068–2080 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ladenberger, L., Bendisposto, J., Leuschel, M.: Visualising Event-B models with B-Motion studio. In: Alpuente, M., Cook, B., Joubert, C. (eds.) FMICS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5825, pp. 202–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04570-7_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leuschel, M., Bendisposto, J., Dobrikov, I., Krings, S., Plagge, D.: From Animation to Data Validation: The ProB Constraint Solver 10 Years On, pp. 427–446. Wiley, Hoboken (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leuschel, M., Samia, M., Bendisposto, J.: Easy graphical animation and formula visualisation for teaching B. In: The B Method: From Research to Teaching (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Margaria, T., Braun, V.: Formal methods and customized visualization: a fruitful symbiosis. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B., Rückert, R., Posegga, J. (eds.) Services and Visualization Towards User-Friendly Design. LNCS, vol. 1385, pp. 190–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). doi: 10.1007/BFb0053506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miao, H., Liu, L., Li, L.: Formalizing UML models with Object-Z. In: George, C., Miao, H. (eds.) ICFEM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2495, pp. 523–534. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-36103-0_53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Najafi, M., Haghighi, H.: An integration of UML-B and Object-Z in software development process. In: Elleithy, K., Sobh, T. (eds.) Innovations and Advances in Computer, Information, Systems Sciences, and Engineering. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol. 152, pp. 633–648. Springer, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pradella, M., Rossi, M., Mandrioli, D.: ArchiTRIO: a UML-compatible language for architectural description and its formal semantics. In: Wang, F. (ed.) FORTE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3731, pp. 381–395. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11562436_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Riccobene, E., Scandurra, P.: A formal framework for service modeling and prototyping. Formal Asp. Comput. 26(6), 1077–1113 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Snook, C., Butler, M.: UML-B: formal modeling and design aided by UML. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(1), 92–122 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spichkova, M.: Design of formal languages and interfaces: “formal” does not mean “unreadable”. In: Emerging Research and Trends in Interactivity and the Human-Computer, Interface, pp. 301–314 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spichkova, M.: Human factors of formal methods. CoRR, abs/1404.7247 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Arcaini
    • 1
  • Silvia Bonfanti
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Angelo Gargantini
    • 2
  • Elvinia Riccobene
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsCharles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Technology Management, Information Technology and ProductionUniversità degli Studi di BergamoBergamoItaly
  3. 3.Software Competence Center Hagenberg GmbHHagenbergAustria
  4. 4.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations