Skip to main content

Counterexample-Based Refinement for a Boundedness Test for CFSM Languages

  • Conference paper
Model Checking Software (SPIN 2005)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 3639))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In precursory work we suggested an abstraction-based highly scalable semi-test for the boundedness of Communicating Finite State Machine (CFSM) based modelling and programming languages. We illustrated its application to Promela and UML-RT models. The test is sound with respect to determining boundedness, but may return inconclusive ”counterexamples” when boundedness cannot be established. In this paper we turn to the question how to effectively determine the spuriousness of these counterexamples, and how to refine the abstraction based on the analysis. We employ methods from program analysis and illustrate the application of our refinement method to a number of Promela examples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball, T., Podelski, A., Rajamani, S.K.: Relative completeness of abstraction refinement for software model checking. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, p. 158. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Bradley, A.R., Manna, Z., Sipma, H.B.: Termination of polynomial programs. In: Concurrency Theory (CONCUR) (August 2005) (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brand, D., Zafiropulo, P.: On communicating finite-state machines. Journal of the ACM 2(5), 323–342 (1983)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Computer Aided Verification, pp. 154–169 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Colón, M., Sankaranarayanan, S., Sipma, H.: Linear invariant generation using non-linear constraint solving. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 420–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Static determination of dynamic properties of programs. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Programming, Dunod, Paris, France, pp. 106–130 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nicholas Graham, T.C., Urnes, T., Nejabi, R.: Efficient distributed implementation of semi-replicated synchronous groupware. In: UIST 1996: Proceedings of the 9th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pp. 1–10. ACM Press, New York (1996)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Holzmann, G.J.: The Spin Model Checker - Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kamel, M., Leue, S.: Formalization and validation of the General Inter-ORB Protocol (GIOP) using Promela and Spin. Software Tools for Technology Transfer 2, 394–409 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Leue, S., Mayr, R., Wei, W.: A scalable incomplete boundedness test for UML RT models. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 327–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Leue, S., Mayr, R., Wei, W.: A scalable incomplete test for buffer overflow of Promela models. In: Graf, S., Mounier, L. (eds.) SPIN 2004. LNCS, vol. 2989, pp. 216–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: A complete method for the synthesis of linear ranking functions. In: Steffen, B., Levi, G. (eds.) VMCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 239–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Transition invariants. In: Proc. of LICS 2004: Logic in Computer Science, pp. 32–41. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Siegel, S.F., Avrunin, G.S.: Improving the precision of inca by eliminating solutions with spurious cycles. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(2), 115–128 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. ter Beek, M.H., Massink, M., Latella, D., Gnesi, S.: Model checking groupware protocols. In: COOP, pp. 179–194 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tip, F.: A survey of program slicing techniques. Journal of Programming Languages 3(3), 121–189 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Leue, S., Wei, W. (2005). Counterexample-Based Refinement for a Boundedness Test for CFSM Languages. In: Godefroid, P. (eds) Model Checking Software. SPIN 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3639. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11537328_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11537328_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-28195-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31899-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics