ABSTRACT
In software development, formal verification plays an important role in improving the quality and safety of products and processes. Model checking is a successful approach to verification, used both in academic research and industrial applications. One important improvement regarding utilization of model checking is the development of automated processes to evolve models according to information obtained from verification. In this paper, we propose a new framework that make use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to generate and evolve models from partial descriptions and examples created by the model checking process. This was implemented as a tool that is integrated with a model checker. Our work extends model checking to be applicable when initial description of a system is not available, through observation of actual behaviour of this system. The framework is capable of integrated verification and evolution of abstract models, but also of reengineering partial models of a system.
- }}D. Alrajeh, J. Kramer, A. Russo, and S. Uchitel. Learning operational requirements from goal models. In ICSE '09: Intl. Conf. Softw. Engineering, pages 265--275. IEEE, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}R. Andrews, J. Diederich, and A. B. Tickle. A survey and critique of techniques for extracting rules from trained artificial neural networks. Knowledge-based Systems, 8(6):373--389, 1995.Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}D. Beyer, T. A. Henzinger, R. Jhala, and R. Majumdar. The software model checker Blast: Applications to software engineering. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 9(5-6):505--525, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}M. G. Bobaru, C. S. Pasareanu, and D. Giannakopoulou. Automated assume-guarantee reasoning by abstraction refinement. In CAV, pages 135--148, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}A. Browne and R. Sun. Connectionist inference models. Neural Networks, 14(10):1331--1355, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}A. Cimatti, M. Pistore, M. Roveri, and R. Sebastiani. Improving the Encoding of LTL Model Checking into SAT. In VMCAI'02, volume 2294 of LNCS. Springer, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}E. Clarke, E. Emerson, and J. Sifakis. Model checking: algorithmic verification and debugging. Commun. ACM, 52(11):74--84, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}E. Clarke, O Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM, 50(5):752--794, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}A. S. d'Avila Garcez, K. Broda, and D. M. Gabbay. Neural-Symbolic Learning Systems: Foundations and Applications. Perspectives in Neural Computing. Springer-Verlag, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}A. S. d'Avila Garcez, L. C. Lamb, and D. M. Gabbay. Neural-Symbolic Cognitive Reasoning. Cognitive Technologies. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}A. S. d'Avila Garcez, A. Russo, B. Nuseibeh, and J. Kramer. An analysis-revision cycle to evolve requirements specifications. In ASE, pages 354--358, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}A. S. d'Avila Garcez and G. Zaverucha. The connectionist inductive learning and logic programming system. Applied Intelligence, 11(1):59--77, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}J. Deshmukh, E. Emerson, and S. Sankaranarayanan. Symbolic deadlock analysis in concurrent libraries and their clients. In ASE, pages 480--491, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}S. Dobson, S. Denazis, A. Fernández, D. Gaïti, Gelenbe, Massacci, P. Nixon, F. Saffre, N. Schmidt, and F. Zambonelli. A survey of autonomic communications. ACM TAAS, 1(2):223--259, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}S. Dobson, R. Sterritt, P. Nixon, and M. Hinchey. Fulfilling the vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Computer, 43(1):35--41, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}M. Fisher, D. Gabbay, and L. Vila, editors. Handbook of temporal reasoning in artificial intelligence. Elsevier, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}S. Haykin. Neural Networks: A Compreensive Foundation. Prentice Hall, 2nd edition, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}P. Hitzler, S. Hölldobler, and A. K. Seda. Logic programs and connectionist networks. J. Applied Logic, 2(3):245--272, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- }}L. C. Lamb, R. V. Borges, and A. S. d'Avila Garcez. A connectionist cognitive model for temporal synchronization and learning. In Proc. of 22nd AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 827--832, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}D. L. Parnas. Really rethinking 'formal methods'. IEEE Computer, 43(1):28--34, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}D. Peled, M. Y. Vardi, and M. Yannakakis. Black box checking. J. of Automata Languages and Combinatorics, 7(2):225--246, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}A. Pnueli. The temporal logic of programs. In FOCS '77: Proc. 18th IEEE Symp.on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 46--67. IEEE Computer Society, 1977. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}L. G. Valiant. Three problems in computer science. Journal of ACM, 50(1):96--99, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Integrating model verification and self-adaptation
Recommendations
Formal verification of ASMs using MDGs
We present a framework for the formal verification of abstract state machine (ASM) designs using the multiway decision graphs (MDG) tool. ASM is a state based language for describing transition systems. MDG provides symbolic representation of transition ...
Modeling and Verification of Reactive Systems using Rebeca
Actor-based modeling has been successfully applied to the representation of concurrent and distributed systems. Besides having an appropriate and efficient way for modeling these systems, one needs a formal verification approach for ensuring their ...
Modeling and Verification of Reactive Systems using Rebeca
Actor-based modeling has been successfully applied to the representation of concurrent and distributed systems. Besides having an appropriate and efficient way for modeling these systems, one needs a formal verification approach for ensuring their ...
Comments