Optimality in abstractions of model checking

Cleaveland, Rance; Iyer, S. Purushothaman; Yankelevich, Daniel

doi:10.1007/3-540-60360-3_32

Cited by 40 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, this is true for N 0 = S d × {ϕ}, and by the choice of S d , we are guaranteed that whenever the abstraction is precise enough, at least one initial node will be colored by a definite color T or F , in which case by Theorems 4 …”

Section: Theorem 42 Let Mmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

3-Valued Abstraction: More Precision at Less Cost

Shoham

Gramberg

21st Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'06)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Theorem 42 Let Mmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Precision of modal (or mixed) transition systems, with ordinary may and must transitions, is studied in [4,7,21]. They suggest constructions of such abstract models which are most precise among all models from this specific class.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3-Valued Abstraction: More Precision at Less Cost

Shoham

Gramberg

21st Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'06)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Formalisms that distinguish between fixed behaviours of a system and behaviours that can be customized based on end-user needs, e.g., Parameterized State Machines (Gomaa, 2004) and Mixed Transition Systems (Dams et al, 1997;Cleaveland et al, 1995).…”

Section: Behavioural Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Formalisms in this group can be encoded as 3-valued Kripke structures (Chechik et al, 2003). The second group is Mixed Transition Systems (MixTSs) (Dams et al, 1997;Cleaveland et al, 1995). These are LTSs with must and may transitions that do not put any restrictions on the relationship between may and must, and hence, extend MTSs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioural model fusion

Nejati

Chećhik

2008

Proceedings of the 2008 International Workshop on Models in Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In large-scale model-based development, developers periodically need to combine collections of interrelated models. These models may capture different features of a system, describe alternative perspectives on a single feature, or express ways in which different features alter one another's structure or behaviour. We refer to the process of combining a set of interrelated models as model fusion.A number of factors make model fusion complicated. Models may overlap, in that they refer to the same concepts, but these concepts may be presented differently in each model, and the models may contradict one another. Models may describe independent system components, but the components may interact, potentially causing undesirable side effects. Finally, models may cross-cut, modifying one another in ways that violate their syntactic or semantic properties.In this thesis, we study three instances of the fusion problem for behavioural models, motivated by real-world applications. The first problem is combining partial models of a single feature with the goal of creating a more complete description of that feature. The second problem is maintenance of variant specifications of individual features. The goal here is to combine the variants while preserving their points of difference (i.e., variabilities). The third problem is analysis of interactions between models describing different features. Specifically, given a set of features, the goal is to construct a composition such that undesirable interactions are absent. We provide an automated tool-supported ii solution to each of these problems and evaluate our solutions.The main novelties of the techniques presented in this thesis are (1) preservation of semantics during the fusion process, and (2) applicability to large and evolving collections of models. These are made possible by explicit modelling of partiality, variability and regularity in behavioural models, and providing semantic-preserving notions for relating these models.iii

show abstract

“…More precisely, they show how an abstraction function on the set of states (formalised as a Galois connection) can be used to obtain an abstract transition system with the property that every formula in the ® -fragment of the modal mu-calculus can be checked on the abstracted system. Cleaveland, Iyer and Yankelevich [6] introduce democratic Kripke structures that can be obtained from ordinary Kripke structures by replacing the transition relation by two transition relations: a liberal (overestimating the possible transitions) and a conservative (underestimating the possible transitions). These permit to obtain a safe checking algorithm for CTL ÿ -formulae by using the liberal relation when checking universal path properties and the conservative relation when verifying existential properties.…”

Section: Reduction Of Infinite-state Transition Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model checking security properties of control flow graphs

Besson

Jensen

Métayer³

et al. 2001

JCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A fundamental problem in software-based security is whether local security checks inserted into the code are sufficient to implement a global security property. This article introduces a formalism based on a linear-time temporal logic for specifying global security properties pertaining to the control flow of the program, and illustrates its expressive power with a number of existing properties. We define a minimalistic, security-dedicated program model that only contains procedure call and run-time security checks and propose an automatic method for verifying that an implementation using local security checks satisfies a global security property. We then show how to instantiate the framework to the security architecture of Java 2 based on stack inspection and privileged method calls.

show abstract

Optimality in abstractions of model checking

Cited by 40 publications

References 8 publications

3-Valued Abstraction: More Precision at Less Cost

3-Valued Abstraction: More Precision at Less Cost

Behavioural model fusion

Model checking security properties of control flow graphs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About