Visual-Trace Simulation of Concurrent Finite-State Machines for Validation and Model-Checking of Complex Behaviour

  • Robert Coleman
  • Vladimir Estivill-Castro
  • René Hexel
  • Carl Lusty
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7628)


Simulation of models that specify behaviour of software in robots, embedded systems, and safety critical systems is crucial to ensure correctness. This is particularly important in conjunction with model-driven development, which is highly prevalent due to its numerous benefits. We use vectors of finite-state machines (FSMs) as our modelling tool. Our FSMs can have their transitions labeled by expressions of a common sense logic, and they are more expressive than other modelling approaches (such as Behavior Trees, Petri nets, or plain FSMs). We interpret the models using the same round-robin scheduler which is integrated into the simulator. Execution on a platform is exactly the same as in the simulator (where sensors and actuators are masqueraded by proxies) and coincides with the generator of the Kripke structure for formal model-checking. In three ubiquitous case studies we show that our simulation discovers issues where those models were incomplete, ambiguous, or incorrect. This further illustrates that simulation and monitoring need to complement formal verification.


simulation testing and validation of robot software interpretation of models model-checking modeling framework for robots software platform and middleware for robotics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Agrawal, A., Simon, G., Karsai, G.: Semantic translation of simulink/stateflow models to hybrid automata using graph transformations. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 109, 43–56 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of model checking. MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Billington, D., Estivill-Castro, V., Hexel, R., Rock, A.: Architecture for Hybrid Robotic Behavior. In: Corchado, E., Wu, X., Oja, E., Herrero, Á., Baruque, B. (eds.) HAIS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5572, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billington, D., Estivill-Castro, V., Hexel, R., Rock, A.: Non-monotonic reasoning for requirements engineering. In: Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE), Athens, pp. 68–77. SciTePress (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Billington, D., Estivill-Castro, V., Hexel, R., Rock, A.: Modelling Behaviour Requirements for Automatic Interpretation, Simulation and Deployment. In: Ando, N., Balakirsky, S., Hemker, T., Reggiani, M., von Stryk, O. (eds.) SIMPAR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6472, pp. 204–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burns, A., Lister, A.M.: A framework for building dependable systems. The Computer Journal 34(2), 173–181 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model checking. MIT Press (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dromey, R.G., Powell, D.: Early requirements defect detection. TickIT Journal 4Q05, 3–13 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Estivill-Castro, V., Hexel, R., Rosenblueth, D.A.: Efficient model checking and fmea analysis with deterministic scheduling of transition-labeled finite-state machines. In: 3rd World Congress Software Engineering, China (to appear, 2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grunske, L., Winter, K., Yatapanage, N., Zafar, S., Lindsay, P.A.: Experience with fault injection experiments for FMEA. Software, Practice and Experience 41(11), 1233–1258 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harel, D., Politi, M.: Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahmood, T., Kazmierczak, E.: A knowledge-based approach for safety analysis using system interactions. In: 13th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conf., APSEC 2006, pp. 445–452 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McDermid, J., Kelly, K.: Industrial press: Safety case. Technical report, High Integrity Systems Engineering Group, University of York (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mellor, S.J.: Embedded systems in UML. OMG White paper (2007) label: We can generate Systems Today,
  15. 15.
    Mellor, S.J., Balcer, M.: Executable UML: A foundation for model-driven architecture. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Myers, T., Dromey, R.G.: From requirements to embedded software - formalising the key steps. In: 20th Australian Software Engineering Conf. (ASWEC), Gold Cost, Australia, pp. 23–33. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG. OMG systems modeling language (OMG SysMLTM). Version 1.3 with change bars (June 2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M.R., Lorensen, W., Eddy, F., Premerlani, W.: Object-Oriented Modelling and Design. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Samek, M.: Practical UML Statecharts in C/C++, 2nd edn: Event-Driven Programming for Embedded Systems, Newnes (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shlaer, S., Mellor, S.J.: Object lifecycles: modeling the world in states. Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shrivastava, S.K., Mancini, L.V., Randell, B.: The duality of fault-tolerant system structures. Software — Practice and Experience 23(7), 773–798 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sloman, M., Kramer, J.: Distributed systems and computer networks. Prentice Hall, UK (1987)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sommerville, I.: Software engineering, 9th edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wagner, F., Schmuki, R., Wagner, T., Wolstenholme, P.: Modeling Software with Finite State Machines: A Practical Approach. CRC Press, NY (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wen, L., Dromey, R.G.: From requirements change to design change: A formal path. In: 2nd Int. Conf. on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2004), pp. 104–113. IEEE Computer Society, Beijing (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Winter, K., Yatapanage, N.: The metal press case study. Technical report, University of Queensland. Supplement in
  27. 27.
    Winter, K., Yatapanage, N.: The mine pump case study. Technical report, University of Queensland. Supplement in

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Coleman
    • 1
  • Vladimir Estivill-Castro
    • 1
  • René Hexel
    • 1
  • Carl Lusty
    • 1
  1. 1.Griffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations