Model Checking Timed UML State Machines and Collaborations

Abstract

Abstract. We describe a prototype tool, hugo/RT, that is designed to automatically verify whether the timed state machines in a UML model interact according to scenarios specified by time-annotated UML collaborations. Timed state machines are compiled into timed automata that exchange signals and operations via a network automaton. A collaboration with time constraints is translated into an observer timed automaton. The model checker uppaal is called upon to verify the timed automata representing the model against the observer timed automaton.

Modeling and Validation of a Software Architecture for the Ariane-5 Launcher

“…There exist already a number of tools proposed for the validation of UML models by translating a subset of UML into the input language of some existing validation tool [16,15,13,7,21,6,2,1] to mention only a some of the relevant work in the context of real-time and embedded systems. Like IFx, most of these tools are based on existing model-checkers such as SPIN [12] (in [16,15]) or COSPAN [11] (in [21] for non-timed systems, and Kronos [22] (in [2]) or Uppaal [14] (in [13,6]) for the verification of systems with timing constraints. Also the translation into proof-based frameworks, such as PVS (e.g.…”

Validating timed UML models by simulation and verification

“…The application of formal analysis techniques (and particularly model checking) to UML is a very active field of study in recent years, as witnessed by the number of papers on this subject ( [24,25,23,22,21,31,14,15,33,4] are most oftenly cited). Like in our case, most of these authors base their work on an existing model checker (SPIN in the case of [24,25,23,31], COSPAN in the case of [33], Kronos for [4], UPPAAL for [21]), and on the mapping of UML to the input language of the respective tool.…”

“…Like in our case, most of these authors base their work on an existing model checker (SPIN in the case of [24,25,23,31], COSPAN in the case of [33], Kronos for [4], UPPAAL for [21]), and on the mapping of UML to the input language of the respective tool.…”

“…Their semantics implies polymorphism and dynamic binding of operations. -Statecharts They are not presented in this paper as already tackled in many previous works like [24,25,23,22,21,31,15,33,4].…”

“…Although this problem has been previously studied [14,24,23,22,21,31], our approach introduces a new dimension by considering the important objectoriented features present in UML: inheritance, polymorphism and dynamic binding of operations, and their interplay with statecharts. We give a solution for modeling these concepts with automata: operations are modeled by dynamically created automata, and thus call stacks are implicitly represented by chains of communicating automata.…”