Symbolic Bounded Conformance Checking of Model Programs

  • Margus Veanes
  • Nikolaj Bjørner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5947)

Abstract

Model programs are high-level behavioral specifications typically representing Abstract State Machines or ASMs. Conformance checking of model programs is the problem of deciding if the set of traces allowed by one model program forms a subset of the set of traces allowed by another model program. This is a foundational problem in the context of model-based testing, where one model program corresponds to an implementation and the other one to its specification. Here model programs are described using the ASM language AsmL. We assume a background \({\mathcal{T}}\) containing linear arithmetic, sets, and tuples. We introduce the Bounded Conformance Checking problem or BCC as a special case of the conformance checking problem when the length of traces is bounded and provide a mapping of BCC to a theorem proving problem in \({\mathcal{T}}\). BCC is shown to be highly undecidable in the general case but decidable for a class of model programs that are common in practice.

Keywords

Model Program Model Check Label Transition System Choice Variable Action Symbol 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: A really temporal logic. In: Proc. 30th Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 164–169 (1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.: Alternating refinement relations. In: Sangiorgi, D., de Simone, R. (eds.) CONCUR 1998. LNCS, vol. 1466, pp. 163–178. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armando, A., Mantovani, J., Platania, L.: Bounded model checking of software using SMT solvers instead of SAT solvers. In: Valmari, A. (ed.) SPIN 2006. LNCS, vol. 3925, pp. 146–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bjørner, D., Henson, M. (eds.): Logics of Specification Languages. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bjørner, N., Gurevich, Y., Schulte, W., Veanes, M.: Symbolic bounded model checking of abstract state machines. Technical Report MSR-TR-2009-14, Microsoft Research (February 2009) (Submitted to IJSI)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Börger, E., Stärk, R.F.: Abstract State Machines: A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bradley, A.R., Manna, Z., Sipma, H.B.: What’s decidable about arrays? In: Emerson, E.A., Namjoshi, K.S. (eds.) VMCAI 2006. LNCS, vol. 3855, pp. 427–442. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bryant, R.E., German, S.M., Velev, M.N.: Exploiting positive equality in a logic of equality with uninterpreted functions. In: Halbwachs, N., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 1999. LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 470–482. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burch, J.R., Dill, D.L.: Automatic verification of pipelined microprocessor control. In: Dill, D.L. (ed.) CAV 1994. LNCS, vol. 818, pp. 68–80. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.S.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Moura, L., Rueß, H., Sorea, M.: Lazy theorem proving for bounded model checking over infinite domains. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) CADE 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2392, pp. 438–455. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fisher, M.J., Rabin, M.O.: Super-exponential complexity of presburger arithmetic. In: Caviness, B.F., Johnson, J.R. (eds.) Quantifier Elimination and Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition, pp. 122–135. Springer, Heidelberg (1998); Reprint from SIAM-AMS Proceedings, vol. VII, pp. 27-41 (1974)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grieskamp, W., MacDonald, D., Kicillof, N., Nandan, A., Stobie, K., Wurden, F.: Model-based quality assurance of Windows protocol documentation. In: ICST 2008, Lillehammer, Norway (April 2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gurevich, Y.: Evolving Algebras 1993: Lipari Guide. In: Specification and Validation Methods, pp. 9–36. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gurevich, Y., Rossman, B., Schulte, W.: Semantic essence of AsmL. Theor. Comput. Sci. 343(3), 370–412 (2005)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Halpern, J.Y.: Presburger arithmetic with unary predicates is \(\Pi^1_1\) complete. Journal of Symbolic Logic 56, 637–642 (1991)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacky, J., Veanes, M., Campbell, C., Schulte, W.: Model-based Software Testing and Analysis with C#. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kang, E., Jackson, D.: Formal modeling and analysis of a flash filesystem in Alloy. In: Börger, E., Butler, M., Bowen, J.P., Boca, P. (eds.) ABZ 2008. LNCS, vol. 5238, pp. 294–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    NModel, http://www.codeplex.com/NModel (public version released, May 2008)
  24. 24.
    Plaisted, D.A., Greenbaum, S.: A structure-preserving clause form translation. J. Symb. Comput. 2(3), 293–304 (1986)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rybina, T., Voronkov, A.: A logical reconstruction of reachability. In: Broy, M., Zamulin, A.V. (eds.) PSI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2890, pp. 222–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Tseitin, G.S.: On the complexity of derivations in the propositional calculus. Studies in Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II, pp. 115–125 (1968)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Veanes, M., Bjørner, N.: Input-output model programs. In: Leucker, M., Morgan, C. (eds.) ICTAC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5684, pp. 322–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Veanes, M., Bjørner, N., Raschke, A.: An SMT approach to bounded reachability analysis of model programs. In: Suzuki, K., Higashino, T., Yasumoto, K., El-Fakih, K. (eds.) FORTE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5048, pp. 53–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Veanes, M., Campbell, C., Grieskamp, W., Schulte, W., Tillmann, N., Nachmanson, L.: Model-based testing of object-oriented reactive systems with Spec Explorer. In: Hierons, R.M., Bowen, J.P., Harman, M. (eds.) FORTEST. LNCS, vol. 4949, pp. 39–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Veanes, M., Saabas, A.: On bounded reachability of programs with set comprehensions. In: Cervesato, I., Veith, H., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5330, pp. 305–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Veanes, M., Saabas, A., Bjørner, N.: Bounded reachability of model programs. Technical Report MSR-TR-2008-81, Microsoft Research (May 2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margus Veanes
    • 1
  • Nikolaj Bjørner
    • 1
  1. 1.Microsoft ResearchRedmondUSA

Personalised recommendations