research-article

Counterexample guided abstraction refinement of product-line behavioural models

Authors:

Patrick Heymans,

Pierre-Yves Schobbens,

Martin LeuckerAuthors Info & Claims

FSE 2014: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering

Pages 190 - 201

https://doi.org/10.1145/2635868.2635919

Published: 11 November 2014 Publication History

Abstract

The model-checking problem for Software Products Lines (SPLs) is harder than for single systems: variability constitutes a new source of complexity that exacerbates the state-explosion problem. Abstraction techniques have successfully alleviated state explosion in single-system models. However, they need to be adapted to SPLs, to take into account the set of variants that produce a counterexample. In this paper, we apply CEGAR (Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement) and we design new forms of abstraction specifically for SPLs. We carry out experiments to evaluate the efficiency of our new abstractions. The results show that our abstractions, combined with an appropriate refinement strategy, hold the potential to achieve large reductions in verification time, although they sometimes perform worse. We discuss in which cases a given abstraction should be used.

References

[1]

A. Albarghouthi, Y. Li, A. Gurfinkel, and M. Chechik. Ufo: A framework for abstraction- and interpolation-based software verification. In CAV, pages 672–678, 2012.

Digital Library

[2]

S. Apel, H. Speidel, P. Wendler, A. von Rhein, and D. Beyer. Feature-interaction detection using feature-aware verification. In ASE’11, pages 372–375. IEEE, 2011.

Digital Library

[3]

S. Apel, A. von Rhein, P. Wendler, A. Größlinger, and D. Beyer. Strategies for product-line verification: case studies and experiments. In ICSE’13, pages 482–491, 2013.

Digital Library

[4]

P. Asirelli, M. H. ter Beek, A. Fantechi, and S. Gnesi. Formal description of variability in product families. In SPLC’11, pages 130–139. Springer-Verlag, 2011.

Digital Library

[5]

C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen. Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, 2007.

[6]

D. Beyer. Second competition on software verification - (summary of sv-comp 2013). In TACAS ’13, pages 594–609, 2013.

Digital Library

[7]

D. Beyer and M. E. Keremoglu. Cpachecker: A tool for configurable software verification. In CAV ’11, pages 184–190, 2011.

Digital Library

[8]

Q. Boucher, A. Classen, P. Heymans, A. Bourdoux, and L. Demonceau. Tag and prune: A pragmatic approach to software product line implementation. In ASE’10, pages 333–336. ACM, 2010.

Digital Library

[9]

G. Bruns and P. Godefroid. Model checking with multi-valued logics. In ICALP ’04, pages 281–293, 2004.

[10]

M. Chechik, B. Devereux, and A. Gurfinkel. Model-checking infinite state-space systems with fine-grained abstractions using spin. In SPIN ’01, pages 16–36, 2001.

Digital Library

[11]

E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In E. Emerson and A. Sistla, editors, Computer Aided Verification, volume 1855 of LNCS, pages 154–169. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2000.

Digital Library

[12]

E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. Peled. Model Checking. MIT Press, 1999.

Digital Library

[13]

E. Clarke, D. Kroening, N. Sharygina, and K. Yorav. Predicate abstraction of ansi-c programs using sat. Form. Methods Syst. Des., 25(2-3):105–127, Sept. 2004.

Digital Library

[14]

A. Classen, M. Cordy, P. Heymans, A. Legay, and P.-Y. Schobbens. Model checking software product lines with SNIP. STTT, 14(5):589–612, 2012.

Digital Library

[15]

A. Classen, M. Cordy, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, and A. Legay. Snip: An efficient model checker for software product lines. Technical report, University of Namur (FUNDP), 2011.

[16]

A. Classen, M. Cordy, P.-Y. Schobbens, P. Heymans, A. Legay, and J.-F. cois Raskin. Featured transition systems: Foundations for verifying variability-intensive systems and their application to LTL model checking. Transactions on Software Engineering, pages 1069–1089, 2013.

Digital Library

[17]

A. Classen, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, and A. Legay. Symbolic model checking of software product lines. In ICSE’11, pages 321–330. ACM, 2011.

Digital Library

[18]

A. Classen, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, A. Legay, and J.-F. Raskin. Model checking lots of systems: efficient verification of temporal properties in software product lines. In ICSE’10, pages 335–344. ACM, 2010.

Digital Library

[19]

P. C. Clements and L. Northrop. Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, August 2001.

Digital Library

[20]

Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS). CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP): Blue Book, Issue 4. NASA, 2007.

[21]

M. Cordy, A. Classen, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, and A. Legay. Managing evolution in software product lines : A model-checking perspective. In VaMoS’12, pages 183–191. ACM, 2012.

Digital Library

[22]

M. Cordy, A. Classen, G. Perrouin, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, and A. Legay. Simulation-based abstractions for software product-line model checking. In ICSE’12, pages 672–682. IEEE, 2012.

Digital Library

[23]

M. Cordy, P.-Y. Schobbens, P. Heymans, and A. Legay. Provelines: A product-line of verifiers for software product lines. In SPLC’13, pages 141–146. ACM, 2013.

Digital Library

[24]

W. Craig. Three Uses of the Herbrand-Gentzen Theorem in Relating Model Theory and Proof Theory. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 22(3):269–285, 1957.

[25]

S. Falke, F. Merz, and C. Sinz. The bounded model checker llbmc. In ASE ’13, pages 706–709, 2013.

Digital Library

[26]

D. Fischbein, S. Uchitel, and V. Braberman. A foundation for behavioural conformance in software product line architectures. In ROSATEA’06, ISSTA 2006 workshop, pages 39–48. ACM Press, 2006.

Digital Library

[27]

S. Graf and H. Sa¨ıdi. Construction of abstract state graphs with pvs. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV ’97, pages 72–83, London, UK, UK, 1997. Springer-Verlag.

Digital Library

[28]

A. Gruler, M. Leucker, and K. Scheidemann. Modeling and model checking software product lines. In FMOODS’08, pages 113–131. Springer, 2008.

Digital Library

[29]

G. J. Holzmann. The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 2004.

Digital Library

[30]

K. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Novak, and S. Peterson. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, 1990.

[31]

J. Kramer, J. Magee, M. Sloman, and A. Lister. Conic: an integrated approach to distributed computer control systems. Computers and Digital Techniques, IEE Proceedings E, 130(1):1–10, 1983.

[32]

J. Liebig, A. von Rhein, C. Kästner, S. Apel, J. Dörre, and C. Lengauer. Scalable analysis of variable software. In ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE ’11, pages 81–91, 2013.

Digital Library

[33]

R. Milner. An algebraic definition of simulation between programs. Technical report, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 1971.

Digital Library

[34]

J. Morse, L. Cordeiro, D. Nicole, and B. Fischer. Handling unbounded loops with esbmc 1.20 - (competition contribution). In TACAS, pages 619–622, 2013.

Digital Library

[35]

M. Plath and M. Ryan. Feature integration using a feature construct. SCP, 41(1):53–84, 2001.

Digital Library

[36]

A. Pnueli. The temporal logic of programs. In FOCS’77, pages 46–57, 1977.

Digital Library

[37]

H. Post and C. Sinz. Configuration lifting: Verification meets software configuration. In ASE’08, pages 347–350. IEEE CS, 2008.

Digital Library

[38]

P.-Y. Schobbens, P. Heymans, J.-C. Trigaux, and Y. Bontemps. Feature Diagrams: A Survey and A Formal Semantics. In RE’06, pages 139–148, 2006.

Digital Library

Cited By

Dimovski ALazreg SCordy MLegay A(2023)Family-based model checking of fMultiLTL propertiesProceedings of the 27th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A10.1145/3579027.3608976(41-51)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3579027.3608976
Fahrenberg ULegay A(2022)Featured gamesScience of Computer Programming10.1016/j.scico.2022.102874(102874)Online publication date: Sep-2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2022.102874
Castro TTeixeira LAlves VApel SCordy MGheyi R(2021)A Formal Framework of Software Product Line AnalysesACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/344238930:3(1-37)Online publication date: 23-Apr-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442389
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Counterexample guided abstraction refinement of product-line behavioural models

Recommendations

Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking

The state explosion problem remains a major hurdle in applying symbolic model checking to large hardware designs. State space abstraction, having been essential for verifying designs of industrial complexity, is typically a manual process, requiring ...
SAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement

We describe new techniques for model checking in the counterexample-guided abstraction-refinement framework. The abstraction phase "hides" the logic of various variables, hence considering them as inputs. This type of abstraction may lead to "spurious" ...
A counterexample-guided abstraction-refinement framework for markov decision processes

The main challenge in using abstractions effectively is to construct a suitable abstraction for the system being verified. One approach that tries to address this problem is that of counterexample guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR), wherein one ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

FSE 2014: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering

November 2014

856 pages

ISBN:9781450330565

DOI:10.1145/2635868

General Chair:
Shing-Chi Cheung
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China
,
Program Chairs:
Alessandro Orso
Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
,
Margaret-Anne Storey
University of Victoria, Canada

Copyright © 2014 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 November 2014

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

SIGSOFT/FSE'14

Sponsor:

SIGSOFT

SIGSOFT/FSE'14: 22nd ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

November 16 - 21, 2014

Hong Kong, China

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 17 of 128 submissions, 13%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

18
Total Citations
View Citations
239
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)4
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 12 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Dimovski ALazreg SCordy MLegay A(2023)Family-based model checking of fMultiLTL propertiesProceedings of the 27th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A10.1145/3579027.3608976(41-51)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3579027.3608976
Fahrenberg ULegay A(2022)Featured gamesScience of Computer Programming10.1016/j.scico.2022.102874(102874)Online publication date: Sep-2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2022.102874
Castro TTeixeira LAlves VApel SCordy MGheyi R(2021)A Formal Framework of Software Product Line AnalysesACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/344238930:3(1-37)Online publication date: 23-Apr-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442389
Cordy MPapadakis MLegay A(2020)Statistical Model Checking for Variability-Intensive SystemsFundamental Approaches to Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-030-45234-6_15(294-314)Online publication date: 17-Apr-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45234-6_15
Cordy MLegay A(2019)Verification and abstraction of real-time variability-intensive systemsInternational Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer10.1007/s10009-019-00537-z21:6(635-649)Online publication date: 21-Sep-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-019-00537-z
Dimovski A(2019)$$\hbox {CTL}^{\star }$$ CTL ⋆ family-based model checking using variability abstractions and modal transition systemsInternational Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer10.1007/s10009-019-00528-0Online publication date: 9-Aug-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-019-00528-0
Cordy MDevroey XLegay APerrouin GClassen AHeymans PSchobbens PRaskin J(2019)A Decade of Featured Transition SystemsFrom Software Engineering to Formal Methods and Tools, and Back10.1007/978-3-030-30985-5_18(285-312)Online publication date: 9-Oct-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30985-5_18
Češka MJansen NJunges SKatoen J(2019)Shepherding Hordes of Markov ChainsAdvances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1007/978-3-030-17465-1_10(172-190)Online publication date: 3-Apr-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17465-1_10
Rhein ALiebig JJanker AKästner CApel S(2018)Variability-Aware Static Analysis at ScaleACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/328098627:4(1-33)Online publication date: 16-Nov-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3280986
Legay APerrouin GSchaefer I(2017)On quantitative requirements for product linesProceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems10.1145/3023956.3023970(2-4)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3023956.3023970
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents