Live and Let Die: LSC-Based Verification of UML-Models

Abstract

We present a strategy for automatic formal verification of Live Sequence Chart (LSC) specifications against UML models in the semantics of [7] employing the symmetry-based technique of Query Reduction [18, 34, 44] and the abstraction technique Data-type Reduction [34]. Altogether this allows for automatic formal verification without providing finite bounds on the numbers of objects created during a run of the system. Our presentation is grounded on a specific formal interpretation of LSCs for the UML domain in terms of [7] which is rich enough to in particular express properties about objects which are created only during activation of the LSC.

Specification and Verification of Dynamic Communication Systems

“…Assuming finite bounds on the length of queues, we can directly apply state-of-the-art techniques for the abstraction of infinite-state systems into finite-state model-checking problems, if infiniteness stems from unbounded creation and destruction of processes [9]. Section 3.2 uses the car platooning running example to describe the verification strategy.…”

“…For this paper we sidestep the last issue by assuming a finite bound n on the length of all queues and focus on the first issues. They can be treated with a combination of Query-and DataType Reduction [9] because DCS lie in the class of systems where the processes are instances of finitely many templates or classes.…”

“…In this setting we apply a particular abstract interpretation called Data-Type Reduction [14] (DTR) to the DCS protocol yielding a finite over-approximation of the original DCS protocol (following [9]). Given a finite set of process identities whose configurations shall be represented exactly, DTR maps all other identities to a special identity ⊥.…”

“…Determining the current followers means accessing flws(⊥) which in turn non-deterministically yields any possible set of process identities that may comprise the exactly represented ones as well as ⊥. For more details we refer to [9].…”

Counterexample Guided Spotlight Abstraction Refinement

“…[12] uses a variant of spotlight abstraction for the verification of parameterised communication models, but they leave out abstraction refinement as future work. [13] proposes a general strategy for spotlight abstraction refinement by inferring and integrating so-called non-interference lemmata. This idea is realised in [14] resp.…”