Efficient Property Preservation Checking of Model Refinements

  • Anton Wijs
  • Luc Engelen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7795)


In model-driven software development, models and model refinements are used to create software. To automatically generate correct software from abstract models by means of model refinement, desirable properties of the initial models must be preserved. We propose an explicit-state model checking technique to determine whether refinements are property preserving. We use networks of labelled transition systems (LTSs) to represent models with concurrent components, and formalise refinements as systems of LTS transformation rules. Property preservation checking involves determining how a rule system relates to an input network, and checking bisimilarity between behaviour subjected to transformation and the corresponding behaviour after transformation. In this way, one avoids generating the entire LTS of the new model. Experimental results demonstrate speedups of several orders of magnitude.


Model Check Model Transformation Transformation Rule Graph Transformation Label Transition System 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: The Existence of Refinement Mappings. Theoretical Computer Science 82, 253–284 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beydeda, S., Book, M., Gruhn, V. (eds.): Model-Driven Software Development. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braunstein, C., Encrenaz, E.: CTL-Property Transformations Along an Incremental Design Process. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Automated Verification of Critical Systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 128, pp. 263–278. Elsevier (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Garoche, P.-L., Thirioux, X.: Essay On Semantics Definition in MDE - An Instrumented Approach for Model Verification. Journal of Software 4(9), 943–958 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dodds, M., Plump, D.: Graph Transformation in Constant Time. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Montanari, U., Ribeiro, L., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4178, pp. 367–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrig, H., Pfender, M., Schneider, H.: Graph Grammars: an Algebraic Approach. In: IEEE Conference Record of 14th Annual Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory, pp. 167–180. IEEE (1973)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Engelen, L.J.P., Wijs, A.J.: Checking Property Preservation of Refining Transformations for Model-Driven Development. CS-Report 12-08, Eindhoven University of Technology (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eppstein, D., Galil, Z., Italiano, G.: Dynamic Graph Algorithms. In: CRC Handbook of Algorithms and Theory of Computation, ch. 22. CRC Press (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2010: A Toolbox for the Construction and Analysis of Distributed Processes. In: Abdulla, P.A., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) TACAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6605, pp. 372–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Luttik, B., Trčka, N.: Branching Bisimilarity with Explicit Divergence. Fundamenta Informaticae 93(4), 371–392 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Groote, J.F., Keiren, J., Mathijssen, A., Ploeger, B., Stappers, F., Tankink, C., Usenko, Y., van Weerdenburg, M., Wesselink, W., Willemse, T., van der Wulp, J.: The mCRL2 Toolset. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Academic Software Development Tools and Techniques (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Groote, J.F., Vaandrager, F.: An Efficient Algorithm for Branching Bisimulation and Stuttering Equivalence. In: Paterson, M. (ed.) ICALP 1990. LNCS, vol. 443, pp. 626–638. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heckel, R.: Graph Transformation in a Nutshell. In: Proceedings of the School of SegraVis Research Training Network on Foundations of Visual Modelling Techniques. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 148, pp. 187–198. Elsevier (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hülsbusch, M., König, B., Rensink, A., Semenyak, M., Soltenborn, C., Wehrheim, H.: Showing Full Semantics Preservation in Model Transformation - A Comparison of Techniques. In: Méry, D., Merz, S. (eds.) IFM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6396, pp. 183–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karsai, G., Narayanan, A.: On the Correctness of Model Transformations in the Development of Embedded Systems. In: Kordon, F., Sokolsky, O. (eds.) Monterey Workshop 2006. LNCS, vol. 4888, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kozen, D.: Results on the Propositional μ-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science 27, 333–354 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lambers, L., Ehrig, H., Orejas, F.: Efficient Detection of Conflicts in Graph-based Model Transformation. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Graph and Model Transformation. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 152, pp. 97–109. Elsevier (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lang, F.: Exp.Open 2.0: A Flexible Tool Integrating Partial Order, Compositional, and On-The-Fly Verification Methods. In: Romijn, J., Smith, G., van de Pol, J. (eds.) IFM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3771, pp. 70–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lano, K.: The B Language and Method, A Guide to Practical Formal Development. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mateescu, R., Wijs, A.: Property-Dependent Reductions for the Modal Mu-Calculus. In: Groce, A., Musuvathi, M. (eds.) SPIN 2011. LNCS, vol. 6823, pp. 2–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Narayanan, A., Karsai, G.: Towards Verifying Model Transformations. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 211, pp. 191–200 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramalingam, G., Reps, T.: On The Computational Complexity of Dynamic Graph Problems. Theoretical Computer Science 158, 233–277 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saha, D.: An Incremental Bisimulation Algorithm. In: Arvind, V., Prasad, S. (eds.) FSTTCS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4855, pp. 204–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sokolsky, O.V., Smolka, S.A.: Incremental Model Checking in the Modal Mu-Calculus. In: Dill, D.L. (ed.) CAV 1994. LNCS, vol. 818, pp. 351–363. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Swamy, G.M.: Incremental Methods for Formal Verification and Logic Synthesis. PhD thesis, University of California (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tarjan, R.: Depth-First Search and Linear Graph Algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing 1(2), 146–160 (1972)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anton Wijs
    • 1
  • Luc Engelen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations