Advertisement

Family-Based Modeling and Analysis for Probabilistic Systems – Featuring ProFeat

  • Philipp Chrszon
  • Clemens Dubslaff
  • Sascha Klüppelholz
  • Christel Baier
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9633)

Abstract

Feature-based formalisms provide an elegant way to specify families of systems that share a base functionality and differ in certain features. They can also facilitate an all-in-one analysis, where all systems of the family are analyzed at once on a single family model instead of one-by-one. This paper presents the basic concepts of the tool \(\textsc {ProFeat}\), which provides a guarded-command language for modeling families of probabilistic systems and an automatic translation of family models to the input language of the probabilistic model checker \(\textsc {Prism}\). This translational approach enables a family-based quantitative analysis with Prism. Besides modeling families of systems that differ in system parameters such as the number of identical processes or channel sizes, \(\textsc {ProFeat}\) also provides special support for the modeling and analysis of (probabilistic) product lines with dynamic feature switches, multi-features and feature attributes. By means of several case studies we show how \(\textsc {ProFeat}\) eases family-based modeling and compare the one-by-one and all-in-one analysis approach.

Keywords

Product Line Model Checker Feature Module Software Product Line Feature Combination 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Apel, S., Hutchins, D.: A calculus for uniform feature composition. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 32(5), 19:1–19:33 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apel, S., Janda, F., Trujillo, S., Kästner, C.: Model superimposition in software product lines. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 4–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apel, S., Kästner, C.: An overview of feature-oriented software development. J. Object Technol. 8(5), 49–84 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Apel, S., von Rhein, A., Wendler, P., Groesslinger, A., Beyer, D.: Strategies for product-line verification: Case studies and experiments. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2013, pp. 482–491. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Apel, S., Speidel, H., Wendler, P., von Rhein, A., Beyer, D.: Detection of feature interactions using feature-aware verification. In: International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 372–375. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baier, C., Engel, B., Klüppelholz, S., Märcker, S., Tews, H., Völp, M.: A probabilistic quantitative analysis of probabilistic-Write/Copy-select. In: Brat, G., Rungta, N., Venet, A. (eds.) NFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7871, pp. 307–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benavides, D., Segura, S., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review. Inf. Syst. 35(6), 615–636 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Classen, A., Boucher, Q., Heymans, P.: A text-based approach to feature modelling: Syntax and semantics of TVL. Sci. Comput. Program. 76(12), 1130–1143 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Classen, A., Cordy, M., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Schobbens, P.-Y.: Model checking software product lines with SNIP. STTT 14(5), 589–612 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Classen, A., Cordy, M., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Schobbens, P.-Y.: Formal semantics, modular specification, and symbolic verification of product-line behaviour. Sci. Comput. Program. 80, 416–439 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Classen, A., Cordy, M., Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Raskin, J.-F.: Featured transition systems: Foundations for verifying variability-intensive systems and their application to LTL model checking. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(8), 1069–1089 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cordy, M., Classen, A., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Schobbens, P.-Y.: Model checking adaptive software with featured transition systems. In: Cámara, J., Lemos, R., Ghezzi, C., Lopes, A. (eds.) Assurances for Self-Adaptive Systems. LNCS, vol. 7740, pp. 1–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cordy, M., Classen, A., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., Legay, A.: ProVeLines: a product line of verifiers for software product lines. In: 17th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC), pp. 141–146. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cordy, M., Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Legay, A.: Beyond boolean product-line model checking: Dealing with feature attributes and multi-features. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2013, pp. 472–481. IEEE Press (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.W.: Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. Softw. Process: Improv. Pract. 10(1), 7–29 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Damiani, F., Schaefer, I.: Dynamic delta-oriented programming. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC 2011. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Daws, C.: Symbolic and parametric model checking of discrete-time markov chains. In: Liu, Z., Araki, K. (eds.) ICTAC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3407, pp. 280–294. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dehnert, C., Junges, S., Jansen, N., Corzilius, F., Volk, M., Bruintjes, H., Katoen, J.-P., Ábrahám, E.: PROPhESY: A PRObabilistic parameter synthesis tool. In: Kroening, D., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9206, pp. 214–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dinkelaker, T., Mitschke, R., Fetzer, K., Mezini, M.: A dynamic software product line approach using aspect models at runtime. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Composition and Variability (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dubslaff, C., Baier, C., Klüppelholz, S.: Probabilistic model checking for feature-oriented systems. In: Chiba, S., Tanter, É., Ernst, E., Hirschfeld, R. (eds.) Transactions on AOSD XII. LNCS, vol. 8989, pp. 180–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Filieri, A., Ghezzi, C., Tamburrelli, G.: A formal approach to adaptive software: Continuous assurance of non-functional requirements. Formal Aspects Comput. 24(2), 163–186 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ghezzi, C., Sharifloo, A.M.: Model-based verification of quantitative non-functional properties for software product lines. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(3), 508–524 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gomaa, H., Hussein, M.: Dynamic software reconfiguration in software product families. In: van der Linden, F.J. (ed.) PFE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3014, pp. 435–444. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gruler, A., Leucker, M., Scheidemann, K.: Modeling and model checking software product lines. In: Barthe, G., de Boer, F.S. (eds.) FMOODS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5051, pp. 113–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hahn, E.M., Hermanns, H., Wachter, B., Zhang, L.: PARAM: A model checker for parametric markov models. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 660–664. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hahn, E.M., Hermanns, H., Zhang, L.: Probabilistic reachability for parametric Markov models. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 13(1), 3–19 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hinton, A., Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM: A tool for automatic verification of probabilistic systems. In: Palsberg, J., Hermanns, H. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 441–444. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Carnegie-Mellon University (1990)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Katz, S.: A superimposition control construct for distributed systems. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 15(2), 337–356 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klein, J., Baier, C., Chrszon, P., Daum, M., Dubslaff, C., Klüppelholz, S., Märcker, S., Müller, D.: Advances in symbolic probabilistic model checking with PRISM. In: Proceedings of the 22th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), LNCS. Springer, to appear (2016)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kowal, M., Schaefer, I., Tribastone, M.: Family-based performance analysis of variant-rich software systems. In: Gnesi, S., Rensink, A. (eds.) FASE 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8411, pp. 94–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kwiatkowska, M.Z., Norman, G., Parker, D.: The PRISM benchmark suite. In: Proceedings of the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QEST 2012), pp. 203–204. IEEE, 2012. https://github.com/prismmodelchecker/prism-benchmarks/
  34. 34.
    Lauenroth, K., Pohl, K., Toehning, S.: Model checking of domain artifacts in product line engineering. In: 24th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 269–280. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meinicke, J., Thüm, T., Schröter, R., Benduhn, F., Saake, G.: An overview on analysis tools for software product lines. In: 18th International Software Product Lines Conference (SPLC), pp. 94–101. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Plath, M., Ryan, M.: Feature integration using a feature construct. Sci. Comput. Program. 41(1), 53–84 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rodrigues, G.N., Alves, V., Nunes, V., Lanna, A., Cordy, M., Schobbens, P.-Y., Sharifloo, A.M., Legay, A.: Modeling and verification for probabilistic properties in software product lines. In: High Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE), pp. 173–180. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Segura, S.: Automated analysis of feature models using atomic sets. In: SPLC (2), pp. 201–207 (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    ter Beek, M.H., Legay, A., Lluch-Lafuente, A., Vandin, A.: Statistical analysis of probabilistic models of software product lines with quantitative constraints. In: 19th International Conference on Software Product Line (SPLC), pp. 11–15. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thüm, T., Kästner, C., Benduhn, F., Meinicke, J., Saake, G., Leich, T.: FeatureIDE: An extensible framework for feature-oriented software development. Sci. Comput. Program. 79, 70–85 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Chrszon
    • 1
  • Clemens Dubslaff
    • 1
  • Sascha Klüppelholz
    • 1
  • Christel Baier
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options