Bounded Model Checking of Graph Transformation Systems via SMT Solving

  • Tobias Isenberg
  • Dominik Steenken
  • Heike Wehrheim
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7892)

Abstract

Bounded model checking (BMC) complements classical model checking by an efficient technique for checking error-freedom of bounded system paths. Usually, BMC approaches reduce the verification problem to propositional satisfiability. With the recent advances in SAT solving, this has proven to be a fast analysis.

In this paper we develop a bounded model checking technique for graph transformation systems. Graph transformation systems (GTSs) provide an intuitive, visual way of specifying system models and their structural changes. An analysis of such models – however – remains difficult since GTSs often give rise to infinite state spaces. In our BMC technique we use first-order instead of propositional logic for encoding complex graph structures and rules. Today’s off-the-shelf SMT solvers can then readily be employed for satisfiability solving. The encoding heavily employs the concept of uninterpreted function symbols for representing edge labels. We have proven soundness of the encoding and report on experiments with different case studies.

Keywords

verification graph transformation systems bounded model checking satisfiablility modulo theories 

References

  1. 1.
    Backes, P., Reineke, J.: A graph transformation case study for the topology analysis of dynamic communication system. In: Transformation Tool Contest 2010. CTIT Workshop Proceedings, vol. WP10-03, pp. 107–118. University of Twente (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldan, P., König, B., Rensink, A.: Summary 2: Graph grammar verification through abstraction. In: König, B., Montanari, U., Gardner, P. (eds.) Graph Transformations and Process Algebras for Modeling Distributed and Mobile Systems. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 04241 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baresi, L., Spoletini, P.: On the use of Alloy to analyze graph transformation systems. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Montanari, U., Ribeiro, L., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4178, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrett, C., Deters, M., de Moura, L., Oliveras, A., Stump, A.: 6 Years of SMT-COMP. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 1–35 (2012), 10.1007/s10817-012-9246-5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barrett, C., Stump, A., Tinelli, C.: The SMT-LIB Standard: Version 2.0. In: Gupta, A., Kroening, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Satisfiability Modulo Theories, Edinburgh, UK (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Becker, B., Beyer, D., Giese, H., Klein, F., Schilling, D.: Symbolic invariant verification for systems with dynamic structural adaptation. In: Osterweil, L.J., Rombach, H.D., Soffa, M.L. (eds.) ICSE, pp. 72–81. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bergmann, G., Boronat, A., Heckel, R., Torrini, P., Ráth, I., Varró, D.: Advances in model transformations by graph transformation: Specification, execution and analysis. In: Wirsing, M., Hölzl, M. (eds.) SENSORIA. LNCS, vol. 6582, pp. 561–584. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Bisztray, D., Heckel, R., Ehrig, H.: Verification of architectural refactorings by rule extraction. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 347–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bouton, T., Caminha B. de Oliveira, D., Déharbe, D., Fontaine, P.: veriT: An open, trustable and efficient smt-solver. In: Schmidt, R.A. (ed.) CADE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5663, pp. 151–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christ, J., Hoenicke, J., Nutz, A.: SMTInterpol: An Interpolating SMT Solver. In: Donaldson, A., Parker, D. (eds.) SPIN 2012. LNCS, vol. 7385, pp. 248–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cimatti, A., Griggio, A., Schaafsma, B.J., Sebastiani, R.: The MathSAT5 SMT Solver. In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S. (eds.) TACAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Korff, M., Löwe, M., Ribeiro, L., Wagner, A., Corradini, A.: Algebraic Approaches to Graph Transformation - Part II: Single Pushout Approach and Comparison with Double Pushout Approach. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) Handbook of Graph Grammars, pp. 247–312. World Scientific (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Engels, G., Güldali, B., Soltenborn, C., Wehrheim, H.: Assuring consistency of business process models and web services using visual contracts. In: Schürr, A., Nagl, M., Zündorf, A. (eds.) AGTIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 5088, pp. 17–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Habel, A., Heckel, R., Taentzer, G.: Graph grammars with negative application conditions. Fundam. Inform. 26(3/4), 287–313 (1996)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Isenberg, T.: Bounded Model Checking für Graphtransformationssysteme als SMT-Problem. Master’s thesis, University of Paderborn, Germany (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kastenberg, H.: Graph-based software specification and verification. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, Enschede (October 2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: ECAI, pp. 359–363 (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    König, B., Kozioura, V.: Augur 2 - a new version of a tool for the analysis of graph transformation systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 211(0), 201–210 (2008); Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques (GT-VMT 2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kreowski, H.-J., Kuske, S., Wille, R.: Graph Transformation Units Guided by a SAT Solver. In: Ehrig, H., Rensink, A., Rozenberg, G., Schürr, A. (eds.) ICGT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6372, pp. 27–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Rensink, A.: The joys of graph transformation. Nieuwsbrief van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Theoretische Informatica 9 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rensink, A., Zambon, E.: Neighbourhood abstraction in GROOVE. Electronic Communications of the EASST 32 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rensink, A.: The GROOVE simulator: A tool for state space generation. In: Pfaltz, J.L., Nagl, M., Böhlen, B. (eds.) AGTIVE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3062, pp. 479–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rensink, A., Zambon, E.: Pattern-based graph abstraction. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7562, pp. 66–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rintanen, J.: Planning and sat. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 483–504. IOS Press (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sagiv, M., Reps, T., Wilhelm, R.: Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 24(3), 217–298 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Steenken, D., Wehrheim, H., Wonisch, D.: Sound and Complete Abstract Graph Transformation. In: Simao, A., Morgan, C. (eds.) SBMF 2011. LNCS, vol. 7021, pp. 92–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tichy, M., Klöpper, B.: Planning self-adaption with graph transformations. In: Schürr, A., Varró, D., Varró, G. (eds.) AGTIVE 2011. LNCS, vol. 7233, pp. 137–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vandin, A., Lluch-Lafuente, A.: Towards a maude tool for model checking temporal graph properties. ECEASST 41 (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zambon, E., Rensink, A.: Graph subsumption in abstract state space exploration. arXiv preprint arXiv:1210.6413 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Isenberg
    • 1
  • Dominik Steenken
    • 1
  • Heike Wehrheim
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations