Automated Verification of Model Transformations in the Automotive Industry

  • Gehan M. K. Selim
  • Fabian Büttner
  • James R. Cordy
  • Juergen Dingel
  • Shige Wang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8107)


Many companies have adopted MDD for developing their software systems. Several studies have reported on such industrial experiences by discussing the effects of MDD and the issues that still need to be addressed. However, only a few studies have discussed using automated verification of industrial model transformations. We previously demonstrated how transformations can be used to migrate GM legacy models to AUTOSAR models. In this study, we investigate using automated verification for such industrial transformations. We report on applying an automated verification approach to the GM-to-AUTOSAR transformation that is based on checking the satisfiability of a relational transformation representation, or a transformation model, with respect to well-formedness OCL constraints. An implementation of this approach is available as a prototype for the ATL language. We present the verification results of this transformation and discuss the practicality of using such tools on industrial size problems.


Model Transformation Automated Verification Automotive Industry 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    AUTOSAR Consortium. AUTOSAR (2007),
  3. 3.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Küster, J.: Analysis of Model Transformations via Alloy. MoDeVVa, pp. 47–56 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asztalos, M., Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T.: Towards Automated, Formal Verification of Model Transformations. In: ICST, Paris, France, pp. 15–24 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Becker, B., Lambers, L., Dyck, J., Birth, S., Giese, H.: Iterative Development of Consistency-Preserving Rule-Based Refactorings. In: Cabot, J., Visser, E. (eds.) ICMT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6707, pp. 123–137. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braga, C., Menezes, R., Comicio, T., Santos, C., Landim, E.: On the Specification, Verification and Implementation of Model Transformations with Transformation Contracts. In: Simao, A., Morgan, C. (eds.) SBMF 2011. LNCS, vol. 7021, pp. 108–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brucker, A.D., Wolff, B.: Semantics, Calculi, and Analysis for Object-Oriented Specifications. Acta Informatica 46(4), 255–284 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Büttner, F., Egea, M., Cabot, J.: On verifying ATL Transformations Using ‘Off-the-Shelf’ SMT Solvers. In: France, R.B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds.) MODELS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7590, pp. 432–448. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Büttner, F., Egea, M., Cabot, J., Gogolla, M.: Verification of ATL Transformations Using Transformation Models and Model Finders. In: Aoki, T., Taguchi, K. (eds.) ICFEM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7635, pp. 198–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Verification and Validation of Declarative Model-to-Model Transformations Through Invariants. Systems and Software 83(2), 283–302 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cariou, E., Belloir, N., Barbier, F., Djemam, N.: OCL Contracts for the Verification of Model Transformations. EASST 24 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cottenier, T., Van Den Berg, A., Elrad, T.: The Motorola WEAVR: Model Weaving in a Large Industrial Context. In: AOSD, Vancouver, Canada, vol. 32 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Daghsen, A., Chaaban, K., Saudrais, S., Leserf, P.: Applying Holistic Distributed Scheduling to AUTOSAR Methodology. In: ERTSS, Toulouse, France (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giese, H., Hildebrandt, S., Neumann, S.: Model Synchronization at Work: Keeping sysML and AUTOSAR Models Consistent. In: Engels, G., Lewerentz, C., Schäfer, W., Schürr, A., Westfechtel, B. (eds.) Nagl Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 5765, pp. 555–579. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gogolla, M., Vallecillo, A.: Tractable Model Transformation Testing. In: France, R.B., Kuester, J.M., Bordbar, B., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6698, pp. 221–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    González Pérez, C.A., Büttner, F., Clarisó, R., Cabot, J.: EMFtoCSP: A Tool for the Lightweight Verification of EMF Models. In: FormSERA, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 44–50 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J., Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schönböck, J., Schwinger, W.: Automated Verification of Model Transformations Based on Visual Contracts. Automated Software Engineering 20(1), 5–46 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Inaba, K., Hidaka, S., Hu, Z., Kato, H., Nakano, K.: Graph-Transformation Verification Using Monadic Second-Order Logic. In: PPDP, pp. 17–28 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jackson, E., Levendovszky, T., Balasubramanian, D.: Automatically reasoning about metamodeling. SoSyM, pp. 1–15 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacobs, B., Poll, E.: A Logic for the Java Modeling Language JML. In: Hussmann, H. (ed.) FASE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2029, pp. 284–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: A Model Transformation Tool. Sci. Comput. Program. 72(1-2), 31–39 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kuhlmann, M., Hamann, L., Gogolla, M.: Extensive Validation of OCL Models by Integrating SAT Solving into USE. In: Bishop, J., Vallecillo, A. (eds.) TOOLS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6705, pp. 290–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lúcio, L., Barroca, B., Amaral, V.: A Technique for Automatic Validation of Model Transformations. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 136–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V.: Where is the Proof? - A Review of Experiences from Applying MDE in Industry. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 432–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Narayanan, A., Karsai, G.: Verifying Model Transformations by Structural Correspondence. EASST 10 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Verification and Validation of UML Conceptual Schemas with OCL Constraints. TOSEM 21(2), 13 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rensink, A.: Explicit State Model Checking for Graph Grammars. In: Degano, P., De Nicola, R., Meseguer, J. (eds.) Concurrency, Graphs and Models. LNCS, vol. 5065, pp. 114–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Selim, G.M.K., Wang, S., Cordy, J.R., Dingel, J.: Model Transformations for Migrating Legacy Models: An Industrial Case Study. In: Vallecillo, A., Tolvanen, J.-P., Kindler, E., Störrle, H., Kolovos, D. (eds.) ECMFA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7349, pp. 90–101. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sen, S., Moha, N., Baudry, B., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Meta-model Pruning. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stenzel, K., Moebius, N., Reif, W.: Formal Verification of QVT Transformations for Code Generation. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 533–547. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tisi, M., Jouault, F., Fraternali, P., Ceri, S., Bézivin, J.: On the Use of Higher-Order Model Transformations. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 18–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Torlak, E., Jackson, D.: Kodkod: A Relational Model Finder. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 632–647. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Troya, J., Vallecillo, A.: A Rewriting Logic Semantics for ATL. Journal of Object Technology 10(5), 1–29 (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
  36. 36.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gehan M. K. Selim
    • 1
  • Fabian Büttner
    • 2
  • James R. Cordy
    • 1
  • Juergen Dingel
    • 1
  • Shige Wang
    • 3
  1. 1.School of ComputingQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.AtlanMod, École des Mines de Nantes - INRIA, LINANantesFrance
  3. 3.Electrical and Controls Integration Lab.General Motors Research and DevelopmentWarrenUSA

Personalised recommendations