research-article

Weak Alphabet Merging of Partial Behavior Models

Authors:

Dario Fischbein,

Nicolas D’Ippolito,

Marsha Chechik,

Sebastian UchitelAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), Volume 21, Issue 2

Article No.: 9, Pages 1 - 47

https://doi.org/10.1145/2089116.2089119

Published: 01 March 2012 Publication History

Abstract

Constructing comprehensive operational models of intended system behavior is a complex and costly task, which can be mitigated by the construction of partial behavior models, providing early feedback and subsequently elaborating them iteratively. However, how should partial behavior models with different viewpoints covering different aspects of behavior be composed? How should partial models of component instances of the same type be put together? In this article, we propose model merging of modal transition systems (MTSs) as a solution to these questions. MTS models are a natural extension of labelled transition systems that support explicit modeling of what is currently unknown about system behavior. We formally define model merging based on weak alphabet refinement, which guarantees property preservation, and show that merging consistent models is a process that should result in a minimal common weak alphabet refinement (MCR). In this article, we provide theoretical results and algorithms that support such a process. Finally, because in practice MTS merging is likely to be combined with other operations over MTSs such as parallel composition, we also study the algebraic properties of merging and apply these, together with the algorithms that support MTS merging, in a case study.

References

[1]

Abadi, M. and Lamport, L. 1991. The existence of refinement mappings. Theor. Comput. Sci. 82, 2, 253--284.

Digital Library

[2]

Ball, T., Levin, V., and Xie, F. 2004. Automatic creation of environment models via training. In Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’04). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2988, Springer, Berlin, 93--107.

[3]

Boem, B. and Turner, R. 2004. Balancing agility and discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed. Pearson Education.

Digital Library

[4]

Brunet, G. 2006. A characterization of merging partial behavioral models. M.S. thesis, University of Toronto.

[5]

Bruns, G. and Godefroid, P. 1999. Model checking partial state spaces with 3-valued temporal logics. In Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV’99). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1633, Springer, Berlin, 274--287.

Digital Library

[6]

Bruns, G. and Godefroid, P. 2000. Generalized model checking: Reasoning about partial state spaces. In Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR’00). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1877, Springer, 168--182.

Digital Library

[7]

Calder, M. and Magill, E. H., (eds.). 2000. Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems VI. IOS Press.

Digital Library

[8]

Chechik, M., Devereux, B., Easterbrook, S., and Gurfinkel, A. 2003. Multi-valued symbolic model-checking. ACM Trans. Soft. Eng. Methodol. 12, 4, 1--38.

Digital Library

[9]

Clarke, E. and Wing, J. 1996. Formal methods: State of the art and future directions. ACM Comput. Surv. 28, 4, 626--643.

Digital Library

[10]

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

Digital Library

[11]

Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., and Veith, H. 2001. Progress on the state explosion problem in model checking. In Informatics. 10 Years Back. 10 Years Ahead, R. Wilhelm, Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2000, Springer, Berlin, 176--194.

Digital Library

[12]

Crews. 1999. Cooperative requirements engineering with scenarios. http://Sunsite.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE/CREWS.

Digital Library

[13]

Cunningham, J. and Finkelstein, A. 1986. Formal requirements specification: The FOREST project. In Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop on Software Specification and Design. IEEE Computer Society Press, 186--192.

[14]

Dams, D. 1996. Abstract interpretation and partition refinement for model checking. Ph.D. dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.

[15]

Dams, D., Gerth, R., and Grumberg, O. 1997. Abstract interpretation of reactive systems. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Sys. 2, 19, 253--291.

Digital Library

[16]

Diaz-Redondo, R., Pazos-Arias, J., and Fernandez-Vilas, A. 2002. Reusing verification information of incomplete specifications. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Component-Based Software Engineering.

[17]

D’Ippolito, N., Fishbein, D., Chechik, M., and Uchitel, S. 2008. MTSA: The modal transition system analyzer. In Proceedings of International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’08). 475--476.

Digital Library

[18]

Dupont, P., Lambeau, B., Damas, C., and van Lamsweerde, A. 2008. The QSM algorithm and its application to software behavior model induction. J. Appl. Artif. Intell. 22, 1--2, 77--115.

Digital Library

[19]

Dwyer, M. B., Avrunin, G. S., and Corbett, J. C. 1998. Property specification patterns for finite-state verification. In Proceedings of 2nd Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Practice.

Digital Library

[20]

Easterbrook, S. and Chechik, M. 2001. A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’01). IEEE Los Alamitos, CA. 411--420.

Digital Library

[21]

Fischbein, D. and Uchitel, S. 2008. On correct and complete merging of partial behavior models. In Proceedings of SIGSOFT Conference on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE’08). 297--307.

Digital Library

[22]

Fischbein, D., Uchitel, S., and Braberman, V. A. 2006. A foundation for behavioral conformance in software product line architectures. In Proceedings of ISSTA’06 Workshop on Role of Software Architecture for Testing and Analysis (ROSATEA’06). 39--48.

Digital Library

[23]

Fitting, M. 1991. Many-valued modal logics. Fundamenta Inf. 15, 3--4, 335--350.

Digital Library

[24]

Giannakopoulou, D. and Magee, J. 2003. Fluent model checking for event-based systems. In Proceedings of the 9th joint meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE’03). ACM, New York, 257--266.

Digital Library

[25]

Godefroid, P., Huth, M., and Jagadeesan, R. 2001. Abstraction-based model checking using modal transition systems. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR’01), K. Larsen and M. Nielsen, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2154, Springer, Berlin, 426--440.

Digital Library

[26]

Godefroid, P. and Jagadeesan, R. 2003. On the expressiveness of 3-valued models. In Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI’03). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2575, Springer, Berlin, 206--222.

Digital Library

[27]

Godefroid, P. and Pitterman, N. 2009. LTL generalized model checking revisited. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI’09). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5403, Springer, Berlin, 89--104.

Digital Library

[28]

Gunter, C. 1992. The mixed powerdomain. Theor. Comput. Sci. 103, 2, 311--334.

Digital Library

[29]

Gurfinkel, A. and Chechik, M. 2005. How thorough is thorough enough. In Proceedings of 13th Advanced Research Working Conference on Correct Hardware Design and Verification Methods (CHARME’05). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3725, Springer, Berlin, 65--80.

Digital Library

[30]

Gurfinkel, A., Wei, O., and Chechik, M. 2006. Systematic construction of abstractions for model-checking. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Verification, Model-Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI’06). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3855. Springer, Berlin, 381--397.

Digital Library

[31]

Harel, D., Kugler, H., and Pnueli, A. 2005. Synthesis revisited: Generating statechart models from scenario-based requirements. In Formal Methods in Software and Systems Modeling, 309--324.

[32]

Hennessy, M. and Milner, R. 1985. Algebraic Laws for Nondeterminism and Concurrency. Journal of ACM 32, 1, 137--161.

Digital Library

[33]

Hoare, C. 1985. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Digital Library

[34]

Horwitz, S., Prins, J., and Reps, T. 1989. Integrating noninterfering versions of programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 11, 3, 345--387.

Digital Library

[35]

Hunter, A. and Nuseibeh, B. 1998. Managing inconsistent specifications: Reasoning, analysis and action. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 7, 4, 335--367.

Digital Library

[36]

Hussain, A. and Huth, M. 2004. On model checking multiple hybrid views. In Proceedings of 1st International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods. 235--242.

[37]

Huth, M., Jagadeesan, R., and Schmidt, D. A. 2001. Modal transition systems: A foundation for three-valued program analysis. In Proceedings of 10th European Symposium on Programming (ESOP’01). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2028. Springer, Berlin, 155--169.

Digital Library

[38]

Huth, M., Jagadeesan, R., and Schmidt, D. 2002. A domain equation for refinement of partial systems. Math. Structures Comput. Sci. 14, 4.

Digital Library

[39]

Hüttel, H. and Larsen, K. G. 1989. The use of static constructs in a modal process logic. In Proceedings of Symposium on Logical Foundations of Computer Science (Logic at Botik’89). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 363. 163--180.

Digital Library

[40]

IEEE. 1994. IEEE recommended practice for software requirements specifications standard 830. Tech. Standard 830.

[41]

ITU-T. 1993. ITU-T recommendation Z.120: message sequence chart (MSC).

[42]

Jacobson, I. 2004. Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison Wesley, Redwood City, CA.

Digital Library

[43]

Kazhamiakin, R., Pistore, M., and Roveri, M. 2004. Formal verification of requirements using SPIN: A case study on web services. In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM’04). 406--415.

Digital Library

[44]

Kleene, S. C. 1952. Introduction to Metamathematics. Van Nostrand, New York.

[45]

Keller, R. 1976. Formal verification of parallel programs. Comm. ACM 19, 7, 371--384.

Digital Library

[46]

Kramer, J., Magee, J., and Sloman, M. 1983. CONIC: An integrated approach to distributed computer control systems. IEE Proc. 130, 1, 1--10.

[47]

Krueger, I., Grosu, R., Scholz, P., and Broy, M. 1999. From MSCs to statecharts. In Distributed and Parallel Embedded Systems, F. J. Rammig, Ed. Kluwer, Amsterdam.

Digital Library

[48]

Larsen, K. and Thomsen, B. 1988. A modal process logic. In Proceedings of 3rd Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’88). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA. 203--210.

[49]

Larsen, K. and Xinxin, L. 1990. Equation solving using modal transition systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’90). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 108--117.

[50]

Larsen, K. G., Steffen, B., and Weise, C. 1995. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In Proceedings of Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’95). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1019, Springer, Berlin, 13--28.

Digital Library

[51]

Larsen, K., Steffen, B., and Weise, C. 1996. The methodology of modal constraints. In Formal Systems Specification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1169, Springer, Berlin, 405--435.

Digital Library

[52]

Letier, E., Kramer, J., Magee, J., and Uchitel, S. 2008. Deriving event-based transition systems from goal-oriented requirements models. Autom. Softw. Eng. 15, 2, 175--206.

Digital Library

[53]

Magee, J. and Kramer, J. 1999. Concurrency - State Models and Java Programs. Wiley, New York.

Digital Library

[54]

Milner, R. 1989. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, New York.

Digital Library

[55]

Nejati, S. and Chechik, M. 2005. Let’s agree to disagree. In Proceedings of 20th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’05). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA. 287--290.

Digital Library

[56]

Nejati, S. and Chechik, M. 2008. Behavioral model fusion: Experiences from two telecommunication case studies. In Proceedings of ICSE’08 Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering (MiSE’08).

Digital Library

[57]

Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., and Zave, P. 2007. Matching and merging of statecharts specifications. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’07). 54--64.

Digital Library

[58]

Nejati, S., Chechik, M., Sabetzadeh, M., Uchitel, S., and Zave, P. 2008. Towards compositional synthesis of evolving systems. In Proceedings of the SIGSOFT Conference on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE’08). 285--296.

Digital Library

[59]

Pnueli, A. 1977. The temporal logic of programs. In Proceedings of 18th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science. 46--57.

Digital Library

[60]

Sabetzadeh, M. and Easterbrook, S. 2003. Analysis of inconsistency in graph-based viewpoints: A category-theoretic approach. In Proceedings of 18th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’03). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA. 12--21.

[61]

Shoham, S. and Grumberg, O. 2004. Monotonic abstraction-refinement for CTL. In Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’04). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2988, Springer, Berlin, 546--560.

[62]

Sibay, G., Uchitel, S., and Braberman, V. 2008. Existential live sequence charts revisited. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’08). ACM, New York, 41--50.

Digital Library

[63]

Uchitel, S. and Chechik, M. 2004. Merging partial behavioral models. In Proceedings of 12th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, New York, 43--52.

Digital Library

[64]

Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., and Magee, J. 2003a. Behavior model elaboration using partial labelled transition systems. In Proceedings of the 9th joint meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE’03). ACM, New York, 19--27.

Digital Library

[65]

Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., and Magee, J. 2003b. Synthesis of behavioral models from scenarios. IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 29, 2, 99--115.

Digital Library

[66]

Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., and Magee, J. 2004. Incremental elaboration of scenario-based specifications and behavior models using implied scenarios. ACM Trans. Soft. Eng. Methodol. 13, 1, 37--85.

Digital Library

[67]

Uchitel, S., Broy, M., Krueger, I. H., and Whittle, J. 2005. Guest editorial: Special section on interaction and state-based modeling. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31, 12, 997--998.

Digital Library

[68]

Uchitel, S., Brunet, G., and Chechik, M. 2007. Behavior model synthesis from properties and scenarios. In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’07). 34--43.

Digital Library

[69]

Uchitel, S., Brunet, G., and Chechik, M. 2009. Synthesis of partial behavior models from properties and scenarios. IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 3, 35, 384--406.

Digital Library

[70]

van Lamsweerde, A. 2004. Goal-oriented requirements enginering: A roundtrip from research to practice. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA. 4--7.

Digital Library

[71]

van Lamsweerde, A. and Letier, E. 2000. Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 26, 10, 978--1005.

Digital Library

[72]

van Ommering, R., van der Linden, F., Kramer, J., and Magee, J. 2000. The Koala component model for consumer electronics software. IEEE Computer 33, 3, 78--85.

Digital Library

[73]

Wei, O., Gurfinkel, A., and Chechik, M. 2009. Mixed transition systems revisited. In Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI’09). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5403, 349--365.

Digital Library

[74]

Xing, Z. and Stroulia, E. 2005. UMLDiff: An algorithm for object-oriented design differencing. In Proceedings of 20th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’05). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA. 54--65.

Digital Library

Cited By

Hallé S(2024)Column: Is Theory (Still) Welcome in Software Engineering Research?ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes10.1145/3650142.365014849:2(19-21)Online publication date: 3-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3650142.3650148
Abeywickrama DBennaceur AChance GDemiris YKordoni ALevine MMoffat LMoreau LMousavi MNuseibeh BRamamoorthy SRingert JWilson JWindsor SEder K(2023)On Specifying for TrustworthinessCommunications of the ACM10.1145/362469967:1(98-109)Online publication date: 21-Dec-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3624699
Lin LXue YSong F(2016)An Algorithm for Forward Reduction in Sequence-Based Software SpecificationInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering10.1142/S021819401640011826:09n10(1431-1451)Online publication date: Nov-2016
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194016400118
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Weak Alphabet Merging of Partial Behavior Models

Recommendations

On correct and complete strong merging of partial behaviour models
SIGSOFT '08/FSE-16: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of software engineering

Modal Transition Systems (MTS) have been shown to be useful to reason about system behaviour in the context of partial information and to support incremental elaboration of behaviour models. A particularly useful notion in the context of software and ...
Merging partial behavioural models

Constructing comprehensive operational models of intended system behaviour is a complex and costly task. Consequently, practitioners have adopted techniques that support incremental elaboration of partial behaviour descriptions. A noteworthy example is ...
Synthesizing Modal Transition Systems from Triggered Scenarios

Synthesis of operational behavior models from scenario-based specifications has been extensively studied. The focus has been mainly on either existential or universal interpretations. One noteworthy exception is Live Sequence Charts (LSCs), which ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology Volume 21, Issue 2

March 2012

232 pages

ISSN:1049-331X

EISSN:1557-7392

DOI:10.1145/2089116

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2012 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]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 March 2012

Accepted: 01 August 2010

Revised: 01 May 2010

Received: 01 May 2006

Published in TOSEM Volume 21, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

20
Total Citations
View Citations
494
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)5
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 09 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Hallé S(2024)Column: Is Theory (Still) Welcome in Software Engineering Research?ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes10.1145/3650142.365014849:2(19-21)Online publication date: 3-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3650142.3650148
Abeywickrama DBennaceur AChance GDemiris YKordoni ALevine MMoffat LMoreau LMousavi MNuseibeh BRamamoorthy SRingert JWilson JWindsor SEder K(2023)On Specifying for TrustworthinessCommunications of the ACM10.1145/362469967:1(98-109)Online publication date: 21-Dec-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3624699
Lin LXue YSong F(2016)An Algorithm for Forward Reduction in Sequence-Based Software SpecificationInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering10.1142/S021819401640011826:09n10(1431-1451)Online publication date: Nov-2016
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194016400118
Ben-David SChechik MUchitel S(2016)Observational Refinement and Merge for Disjunctive MTSsAutomated Technology for Verification and Analysis10.1007/978-3-319-46520-3_19(287-303)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2016
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46520-3_19
Beneš NDaca PHenzinger TKřetínský JNičković DKruchten PBecker SSchneider J(2015)Complete Composition Operators for IOCO-Testing TheoryProceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering10.1145/2737166.2737175(101-110)Online publication date: 4-May-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2737166.2737175
Salay RChechik M(2015)A Generalized Formal Framework for Partial ModelingCompiler Construction10.1007/978-3-662-46675-9_9(133-148)Online publication date: 2015
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46675-9_9
Krka ID'Ippolito NMedvidović NUchitel S(2014)Revisiting Compatibility of Input-Output Modal Transition SystemsProceedings of the 19th International Symposium on FM 2014: Formal Methods - Volume 844210.1007/978-3-319-06410-9_26(367-381)Online publication date: 12-May-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-319-06410-9_26
Chechik MSimmonds JLiaskos SNejati SSabetzadeh MSalay R(2013)PWWMThe Personal Web10.5555/2554612.2554614(11-48)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2554612.2554614
Braberman VD'Ippolito NPiterman NSykes DUchitel SNotkin DCheng BPohl K(2013)Controller synthesis: from modelling to enactmentProceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering10.5555/2486788.2487002(1347-1350)Online publication date: 18-May-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2486788.2487002
Braberman VD'Ippolito NPiterman NSykes DUcriitel S(2013)Controller synthesis: From modelling to enactment2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606714(1347-1350)Online publication date: May-2013
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606714
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 Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents