The COMICS Tool - Computing Minimal Counterexamples for Discrete-time Markov Chains

This report presents the tool COMICS, which performs model checking and generates counterexamples for DTMCs. For an input DTMC, COMICS computes an abstract system that carries the model checking information and uses this result to compute a critical subsystem, which induces a counterexample. This abstract subsystem can be refined and concretized hierarchically. The tool comes with a command-line version as well as a graphical user interface that allows the user to interactively influence the refinement process of the counterexample

SensorCloud: Towards the Interdisciplinary Development of a Trustworthy Platform for Globally Interconnected Sensors and Actuators

Although Cloud Computing promises to lower IT costs and increase users' productivity in everyday life, the unattractive aspect of this new technology is that the user no longer owns all the devices which process personal data. To lower scepticism, the project SensorCloud investigates techniques to understand and compensate these adoption barriers in a scenario consisting of cloud applications that utilize sensors and actuators placed in private places. This work provides an interdisciplinary overview of the social and technical core research challenges for the trustworthy integration of sensor and actuator devices with the Cloud Computing paradigm. Most importantly, these challenges include i) ease of development, ii) security and privacy, and iii) social dimensions of a cloud-based system which integrates into private life. When these challenges are tackled in the development of future cloud systems, the attractiveness of new use cases in a sensor-enabled world will considerably be increased for users who currently do not trust the Cloud.Comment: 14 pages, 3 figures, published as technical report of the Department of Computer Science of RWTH Aachen Universit

Quantitative Timed Analysis of Interactive Markov Chains

Abstract This paper presents new algorithms and accompanying tool support for analyzing interactive Markov chains (IMCs), a stochastic timed 1 1 2-player game in which delays are exponentially distributed. IMCs are compositional and act as semantic model for engineering for-malisms such as AADL and dynamic fault trees. We provide algorithms for determining the extremal expected time of reaching a set of states, and the long-run average of time spent in a set of states. The prototypical tool Imca supports these algorithms as well as the synthesis of ε-optimal piecewise constant timed policies for timed reachability objectives. Two case studies show the feasibility and scalability of the algorithms.

Explanation of the Model Checker Verification Results

Immer wenn neue Anforderungen an ein System gestellt werden, müssen die Korrektheit und Konsistenz der Systemspezifikation überprüft werden, was in der Praxis in der Regel manuell erfolgt. Eine mögliche Option, um die Nachteile dieser manuellen Analyse zu überwinden, ist das sogenannte Contract-Based Design. Dieser Entwurfsansatz kann den Verifikationsprozess zur Überprüfung, ob die Anforderungen auf oberster Ebene konsistent verfeinert wurden, automatisieren. Die Verifikation kann somit iterativ durchgeführt werden, um die Korrektheit und Konsistenz des Systems angesichts jeglicher Änderung der Spezifikationen sicherzustellen. Allerdings ist es aufgrund der mangelnden Benutzerfreundlichkeit und der Schwierigkeiten bei der Interpretation von Verifizierungsergebnissen immer noch eine Herausforderung, formale Ansätze in der Industrie einzusetzen. Stellt beispielsweise der Model Checker bei der Verifikation eine Inkonsistenz fest, generiert er ein Gegenbeispiel (Counterexample) und weist gleichzeitig darauf hin, dass die gegebenen Eingabespezifikationen inkonsistent sind. Hier besteht die gewaltige Herausforderung darin, das generierte Gegenbeispiel zu verstehen, das oft sehr lang, kryptisch und komplex ist. Darüber hinaus liegt es in der Verantwortung der Ingenieurin bzw. des Ingenieurs, die inkonsistente Spezifikation in einer potenziell großen Menge von Spezifikationen zu identifizieren. Diese Arbeit schlägt einen Ansatz zur Erklärung von Gegenbeispielen (Counterexample Explanation Approach) vor, der die Verwendung von formalen Methoden vereinfacht und fördert, indem benutzerfreundliche Erklärungen der Verifikationsergebnisse der Ingenieurin bzw. dem Ingenieur präsentiert werden. Der Ansatz zur Erklärung von Gegenbeispielen wird mittels zweier Methoden evaluiert: (1) Evaluation anhand verschiedener Anwendungsbeispiele und (2) eine Benutzerstudie in Form eines One-Group Pretest-Posttest Experiments.Whenever new requirements are introduced for a system, the correctness and consistency of the system specification must be verified, which is often done manually in industrial settings. One viable option to traverse disadvantages of this manual analysis is to employ the contract-based design, which can automate the verification process to determine whether the refinements of top-level requirements are consistent. Thus, verification can be performed iteratively to ensure the system’s correctness and consistency in the face of any change in specifications. Having said that, it is still challenging to deploy formal approaches in industries due to their lack of usability and their difficulties in interpreting verification results. For instance, if the model checker identifies inconsistency during the verification, it generates a counterexample while also indicating that the given input specifications are inconsistent. Here, the formidable challenge is to comprehend the generated counterexample, which is often lengthy, cryptic, and complex. Furthermore, it is the engineer’s responsibility to identify the inconsistent specification among a potentially huge set of specifications. This PhD thesis proposes a counterexample explanation approach for formal methods that simplifies and encourages their use by presenting user-friendly explanations of the verification results. The proposed counterexample explanation approach identifies and explains relevant information from the verification result in what seems like a natural language statement. The counterexample explanation approach extracts relevant information by identifying inconsistent specifications from among the set of specifications, as well as erroneous states and variables from the counterexample. The counterexample explanation approach is evaluated using two methods: (1) evaluation with different application examples, and (2) a user-study known as one-group pretest and posttest experiment