Symbolic Step Encodings for Object Based Communicating State Machines

  • Jori Dubrovin
  • Tommi Junttila
  • Keijo Heljanko
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5051)

Abstract

In this work, novel symbolic step encodings of the transition relation for object based communicating state machines are presented. This class of systems is tailored to capture the essential data manipulation features of UML state machines when enriched with a Java-like object oriented action language. The main contribution of the work is the generalization of the \(\exists\)-step semantics approach, which Rintanen has used for improving the efficiency of SAT based AI planning, to a much more complex class of systems. Furthermore, the approach is extended to employ a dynamic notion of independence. To evaluate the encodings, UML state machine models are automatically translated into NuSMV models and then symbolically model checked with NuSMV. Especially in bounded model checking (BMC), the \(\exists\)-step semantics often significantly outperforms the traditional interleaving semantics without any substantial blowup in the BMC encoding as a SAT formula.

Keywords

State Machine Model Check Transition Relation Symbolic Model Check Bound Model Check 
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.
Download to read the full conference paper text

References

  1. 1.
    Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., Tacchella, A.: NuSMV version 2: An opensource tool for symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 359–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The Spin Model Checker. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) ETAPS 1999 and TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Valmari, A.: The state explosion problem. In: Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1491, pp. 429–528. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jussila, T., Dubrovin, J., Junttila, T., Latvala, T., Porres, I.: Model checking dynamic and hierarchical UML state machines. In: Proc. MoDeV2a: Model Development, Validation and Verification, pp. 94–110 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rintanen, J., Heljanko, K., Niemelä, I.: Planning as satisfiability: parallel plans and algorithms for plan search. Artificial Intelligence 170(12-13), 1031–1080 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heljanko, K.: Bounded reachability checking with process semantics. In: Larsen, K.G., Nielsen, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2154, pp. 218–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Best, E., Devillers, R.R.: Sequential and concurrent behaviour in Petri net theory. Theoretical Computer Science 55(1), 87–136 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic and stochastic search. In: AAAI 1996/IAAI 1996, vol. 2, pp. 1194–1201. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., Koehler, J.: Encoding planning problems in nonmonotonic logic programs. In: Steel, S. (ed.) ECP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1348, pp. 169–181. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wehrle, M., Rintanen, J.: Planning as satisfiability with relaxed \(\exists\)-step plans. In: Orgun, M.A., Thornton, J. (eds.) AI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4830, pp. 244–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ogata, S., Tsuchiya, T., Kikuno, T.: SAT-based verification of safe Petri nets. In: Wang, F. (ed.) ATVA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3299, pp. 79–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jussila, T.: BMC via dynamic atomicity analysis. In: ACSD 2004, pp. 197–206. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jussila, T., Heljanko, K., Niemelä, I.: BMC via on-the-fly determinization. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 7(2), 89–101 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jussila, T.: On Bounded Model Checking of Asynchronous Systems. Doctoral dissertation, Helsinki Univ.of Technology (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dubrovin, J., Junttila, T., Heljanko, K.: Symbolic step encodings for object based communicating state machines. Technical Report B24, Helsinki Univ.of Technology, Lab.for Theoretical Computer Science (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dubrovin, J.: Jumbala — An action language for UML state machines. Research Report A101, Helsinki Univ.of Technology, Lab.for Theoretical Computer Science (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gosling, J., Joy, B., Steele, G., Bracha, G.: The Java Language Specification, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dubrovin, J., Junttila, T.: Symbolic model checking of hierarchical UML state machines. In: ACSD (to appear, 2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kamel, M., Leue, S.: Formalization and validation of the General Inter-ORB Protocol (GIOP) using PROMELA and SPIN. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 2(4), 394–409 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heljanko, K., Junttila, T., Latvala, T.: Incremental and complete bounded model checking for full PLTL. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 98–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Biere, A., Heljanko, K., Junttila, T., Latvala, T., Schuppan, V.: Linear encodings of bounded LTL model checking. Logical Methods in Computer Science 2(5:5) (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heljanko, K., Niemelä, I.: Bounded LTL model checking with stable models. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(4&5), 519–550 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jori Dubrovin
    • 1
  • Tommi Junttila
    • 1
  • Keijo Heljanko
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computer ScienceHelsinki University of Technology (TKK)Finland

Personalised recommendations