skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Improving Invariant Mining via Static Analysis

Published:27 September 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper proposes the use of static analysis to improve the generation of invariants from test data extracted from Simulink models. Previous work has shown the utility of such automatically generated invariants as a means for updating and completing system specifications; they also are useful as a means of understanding model behavior. This work shows how the scalability and accuracy of the data mining process can be dramatically improved by using information from data/control flow analysis to reduce the search space of the invariant mining and to eliminate false positives. Comparative evaluations of the process show that the improvements significantly reduce execution time and memory consumption, thereby supporting the analysis of more complex models, while also improving the accuracy of the generated invariants.

References

  1. Chris Ackermann, Rance Cleaveland, Samuel Huang, Arnab Ray, Charles Shelton, and Elizabeth Latronico. 2010. Automatic requirement extraction from test cases. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Runtime Verification (RV’10). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1--15. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1939399.1939401 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Aditya Agrawal, Gyula Simon, and Gabor Karsai. 2004. Semantic translation of simulink/stateflow models to hybrid automata using graph transformations. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 109 (2004), 43--56. Proceedings of the Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modelling Techniques (GT-VMT 2004).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Rakesh Agrawal, Tomasz Imieliński, and Arun Swami. 1993. Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. SIGMOD Rec. 22, 2 (June 1993), 207--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Fabrizio Angiulli, Giovambattista Ianni, and Luigi Palopoli. 2001. On the complexity of mining association rules. In SEBD. 177--184.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ivan Beschastnikh, Yuriy Brun, Michael D. Ernst, Arvind Krishnamurthy, and Thomas E. Anderson. 2011. Mining temporal invariants from partially ordered logs. In Managing Large-scale Systems via the Analysis of System Logs and the Application of Machine Learning Techniques (SLAML’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Xueqi Cheng and Michael S. Hsiao. 2008. Simulation-directed invariant mining for software verification. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 682--687. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Iulia Dragomir, Viorel Preoteasa, and Stavros Tripakis. 2016. Compositional Semantics and Analysis of Hierarchical Block Diagrams. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 38--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Michael D. Ernst, Jeff H. Perkins, Philip J. Guo, Stephen McCamant, Carlos Pacheco, Matthew S. Tschantz, and Chen Xiao. 2007. The daikon system for dynamic detection of likely invariants. Sci. Comput. Program. 69, 1--3 (Dec. 2007), 35--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Peter Fontana. 2015. Towards a Unified Theory of Timed Automata. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Maryland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Philippe Fournier-Viger, Jerry Chun-Wei Lin, Antonio Gomariz, Ted Gueniche, Azadeh Soltani, Zhihong Deng, and Hoang Thanh Lam. 2016. The SPMF open-source data mining library version 2. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer, 36--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Thomas Gerlitz, Norman Hansen, Christian Dernehl, and Stefan Kowalewski. artshop: A continuous integration and quality assessment framework for model-based software artifacts. In Tagungsband des Dagstuhl-Workshops. 13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Lieve Hamers, Yves Hemeryck, Guido Herweyers, Marc Janssen, Hans Keters, Ronald Rousseau, and André Vanhoutte. 1989. Similarity measures in scientometric research: The jaccard index versus salton’s cosine formula. Information Processing 8 Management 25, 3 (1989), 315--318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jiawei Han, Jian Pei, and Yiwen Yin. 2000. Mining frequent patterns without candidate generation. SIGMOD Rec. 29, 2 (May 2000), 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Z. Jiang, M. Pajic, A. Connolly, S. Dixit, and R. Mangharam. 2010. Real-time heart model for implantable cardiac device validation and verification. In 2010 22nd Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems. 239--248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Roberto Lublinerman, Christian Szegedy, and Stavros Tripakis. 2009. Modular code generation from synchronous block diagrams: Modularity vs. code size. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 78--89. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. R. Lublinerman and S. Tripakis. 2008. Modular code generation from triggered and timed block diagrams. In 2008 IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium. 147--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Roberto Lublinerman and Stavros Tripakis. 2008. Modularity vs. reusability: Code generation from synchronous block diagrams. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1504--1509. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. B. Meenakshi, Abhishek Bhatnagar, and Sudeepa Roy. 2006. Tool for translating simulink models into input language of a model checker. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Formal Methods and Software Engineering (ICFEM’06). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 606--620. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Raymond T. Ng, Laks V. S. Lakshmanan, Jiawei Han, and Alex Pang. 1998. Exploratory mining and pruning optimizations of constrained associations rules. SIGMOD Rec. 27, 2 (June 1998), 13--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. V. Pantelic, S. Postma, M. Lawford, A. Korobkine, B. Mackenzie, J. Ong, and M. Bender. 2015. A toolset for simulink: Improving software engineering practices in development with simulink. In 2015 3rd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD). 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jian Pei, Jiawei Han, and L. V. S. Lakshmanan. 2001. Mining frequent itemsets with convertible constraints. In Proceedings 17th International Conference on Data Engineering. 433--442. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Shobha Vasudevan, David Sheridan, Sanjay Patel, David Tcheng, Bill Tuohy, and Daniel Johnson. 2010. GoldMine: Automatic assertion generation using data mining and static analysis. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE’10). European Design and Automation Association, 3001 Leuven, Belgium, Belgium, 626--629. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1870926.1871074 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C. Ohlsson, Bjöorn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2000. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Improving Invariant Mining via Static Analysis

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems
          ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems  Volume 16, Issue 5s
          Special Issue ESWEEK 2017, CASES 2017, CODES + ISSS 2017 and EMSOFT 2017
          October 2017
          1448 pages
          ISSN:1539-9087
          EISSN:1558-3465
          DOI:10.1145/3145508
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 27 September 2017
          • Accepted: 1 July 2017
          • Revised: 1 June 2017
          • Received: 1 April 2017
          Published in tecs Volume 16, Issue 5s

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader