Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

From Reactive Systems to Cyber-Physical Systems pp 126–145Cite as

Generating Hard Benchmark Problems for Weak Bisimulation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 11500))

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a method to automatically generate arbitrarily complex benchmark problems for bisimulation checking. Technically, this method is a variant of an incremental generation approach for model checking benchmarks where given benchmark scenarios of controllable size are expanded to arbitrarily complex benchmark problems. This expansion concerns both the number of parallel components and the component sizes. Whereas our property-preserving parallel decomposition is maintained in this variant, the alphabet extension is flexibilized as, in contrast to temporal logics, weak bisimulation is not sensitive to liveness properties.

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

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 EPUB and 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    What we mean here is that M can be conveniently model checked with state-of-the-art technology.

  2. 2.

    This definition depends on the fact that each must transition is also a may transition.

  3. 3.

    This definition again depends on the fact that each must transition is also a may transition.

  4. 4.

    Such a conflict can easily be detected via the determinization of the may automaton of I.

  5. 5.

    Intuitively, an MC specifies an assume-guarantee contract [2, 3, 17, 33] based on an MTS M such that the parallel composition of the system MTS and a corresponding context MTS is guaranteed to refine M. The system component makes assumptions about the (non-)availability of transitions to synchronize with, and the context guarantees these assumptions.

  6. 6.

    Note that this definition of alphabet extension differs from the context extension introduced for model checking benchmarks in [38]: Because we do not need to guarantee liveness properties for weak bisimulation, Floyd-like cut points that guarantee an eventual synchronization are no longer required here.

  7. 7.

    Further refinement choices akin to bisimulation-preserving transformations would be possible too.

References

  1. Bartocci, E., et al.: First international competition on runtime verification: rules, benchmarks, tools, and final results of CRV 2014. STTT, pp. 1–40, April 2017

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bauer, S.S., et al.: Moving from specifications to contracts in component-based design. In: de Lara, J., Zisman, A. (eds.) FASE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28872-2_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B.: Synchronous interfaces and assume/guarantee contracts. In: Aceto, L., Bacci, G., Bacci, G., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Legay, A., Mardare, R. (eds.) Models, Algorithms, Logics and Tools. LNCS, vol. 10460, pp. 233–248. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63121-9_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Beyer, D.: Competition on software verification. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 504–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28756-5_38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Bunte, O., et al.: The mCRL2 toolset for analysing concurrent systems. In: Vojnar, T., Zhang, L. (eds.) TACAS 2019. LNCS, vol. 11428, pp. 21–39. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17465-1_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/10722167_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Progress on the state explosion problem in model checking. In: Wilhelm, R. (ed.) Informatics. LNCS, vol. 2000, pp. 176–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44577-3_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Cleaveland, R., Parrow, J., Steffen, B.: The concurrency workbench: a semantics-based tool for the verification of concurrent systems. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 15(1), 36–72 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cleaveland, R., Steffen, B.: A preorder for partial process specifications. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Klop, J.W. (eds.) CONCUR 1990. LNCS, vol. 458, pp. 141–151. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0039057

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Czech, M., Hüllermeier, E., Jakobs, M.C., Wehrheim, H.: Predicting rankings of software verification tools. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Software Analytics, SWAN 2017, pp. 23–26. ACM (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2011: a toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed processes. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 15(2), 89–107 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Geske, M., Jasper, M., Steffen, B., Howar, F., Schordan, M., van de Pol, J.: RERS 2016: parallel and sequential benchmarks with focus on LTL verification. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 787–803. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_59

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Godefroid, P. (ed.): Partial-Order Methods for the Verification of Concurrent Systems. LNCS, vol. 1032. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60761-7

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Graf, S., Steffen, B.: Compositional minimization of finite state systems. In: Clarke, E.M., Kurshan, R.P. (eds.) CAV 1990. LNCS, vol. 531, pp. 186–196. Springer, Heidelberg (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0023732

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Graf, S., Steffen, B., Lüttgen, G.: Compositional minimisation of finite state systems using interface specifications. Formal Aspects Comput. 8(5), 607–616 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Grosu, R., Smolka, S.A.: Monte Carlo model checking. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 271–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31980-1_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model checking and modular verification. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. (TOPLAS) 16(3), 843–871 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. In: Hansen, P.B. (ed.) The Origin of Concurrent Programming, pp. 413–443. Springer, New York (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3472-0_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Howar, F., Isberner, M., Merten, M., Steffen, B., Beyer, D., Păsăreanu, C.: Rigorous examination of reactive systems. The RERS challenges 2012 and 2013. STTT 16(5), 457–464 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Huisman, M., Klebanov, V., Monahan, R.: VerifyThis 2012. STTT 17(6), 647–657 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hüttel, H., Larsen, K.G.: The use of static constructs in a model process logic. In: Meyer, A.R., Taitslin, M.A. (eds.) Logic at Botik 1989. LNCS, vol. 363, pp. 163–180. Springer, Heidelberg (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-51237-3_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Jasper, M., et al.: RERS 2019: combining synthesis with real-world models. In: Beyer, D., Huisman, M., Kordon, F., Steffen, B. (eds.) TACAS 2019. LNCS, vol. 11429, pp. 101–115. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Jasper, M., Mues, M., Schlüter, M., Steffen, B., Howar, F.: RERS 2018: CTL, LTL, and reachability. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11245, pp. 433–447. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Jasper, M., Steffen, B.: Synthesizing subtle bugs with known witnesses. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11245, pp. 235–257. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Kanellakis, P.C., Smolka, S.A.: CCS expressions, finite state processes, and three problems of equivalence. Inf. Comput. 86(1), 43–68 (1990)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Kordon, F., et al.: Report on the model checking contest at petri nets 2011. In: Jensen, K., van der Aalst, W.M., Ajmone Marsan, M., Franceschinis, G., Kleijn, J., Kristensen, L.M. (eds.) Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency VI. LNCS, vol. 7400, pp. 169–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35179-2_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Larsen, K.G.: Modal specifications. In: Sifakis, J. (ed.) CAV 1989. LNCS, vol. 407, pp. 232–246. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-52148-8_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Legay, A., Delahaye, B., Bensalem, S.: Statistical model checking: an overview. In: Barringer, H., et al. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 122–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16612-9_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Simplicity as a driver for agile innovation. Computer 43(6), 90–92 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River (1989)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Park, D.: Concurrency and automata on infinite sequences. In: Deussen, P. (ed.) GI-TCS 1981. LNCS, vol. 104, pp. 167–183. Springer, Heidelberg (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0017309

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: On the synthesis of a reactive module. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 1989, pp. 179–190. ACM (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Raclet, J.B., Badouel, E., Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Legay, A., Passerone, R.: A modal interface theory for component-based design. Fundamenta Informaticae 108(1–2), 119–149 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Steffen, B., Jasper, M., Meijer, J., van de Pol, J.: Property-preserving generation of tailored benchmark petri nets. In: 17th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD), pp. 1–8, June 2017

    Google Scholar 

  35. Steffen, B.: Characteristic formulae. In: Ausiello, G., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Della Rocca, S.R. (eds.) ICALP 1989. LNCS, vol. 372, pp. 723–732. Springer, Heidelberg (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035794

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Steffen, B., Howar, F., Merten, M.: Introduction to active automata learning from a practical perspective. In: Bernardo, M., Issarny, V. (eds.) SFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6659, pp. 256–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21455-4_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Steffen, B., Isberner, M., Naujokat, S., Margaria, T., Geske, M.: Property-driven benchmark generation: synthesizing programs of realistic structure. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 16(5), 465–479 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Steffen, B., Jasper, M.: Property-preserving parallel decomposition. In: Aceto, L., Bacci, G., Bacci, G., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Legay, A., Mardare, R. (eds.) Models, Algorithms, Logics and Tools. LNCS, vol. 10460, pp. 125–145. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63121-9_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Valmari, A.: The state explosion problem. In: Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ACPN 1996. LNCS, vol. 1491, pp. 429–528. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-65306-6_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Vanglabbeek, R., Smolka, S., Steffen, B.: Reactive, generative, and stratified models of probabilistic processes. Inf. Comput. 121(1), 59–80 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We are very grateful to Maximilian Schlüter for his implementation of the automatic context generation that was used to create the illustrations in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany

    Bernhard Steffen & Marc Jasper

Authors
  1. Bernhard Steffen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc Jasper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Jasper .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Ezio Bartocci

  2. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Rance Cleaveland

  3. Technische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Radu Grosu

  4. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Oleg Sokolsky

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Steffen, B., Jasper, M. (2019). Generating Hard Benchmark Problems for Weak Bisimulation. In: Bartocci, E., Cleaveland, R., Grosu, R., Sokolsky, O. (eds) From Reactive Systems to Cyber-Physical Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11500. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31514-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31514-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31513-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31514-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation