16,287 research outputs found
Comparing metaheuristic algorithms for error detection in Java programs
Chicano, F., Ferreira M., & Alba E. (2011). Comparing Metaheuristic Algorithms for Error Detection in Java Programs. In Proceedings of Search Based Software Engineering, Szeged, Hungary, September 10-12, 2011. pp. 82ā96.Model checking is a fully automatic technique for checking concurrent software properties in which the states of a concurrent system are explored in an explicit or implicit way. The main drawback of this technique is the high memory consumption, which limits the size of the programs that can be checked. In the last years, some researchers have focused on the application of guided non-complete stochastic techniques to the search of the state space of such concurrent programs. In this paper, we compare five metaheuristic algorithms for this problem. The algorithms are Simulated Annealing, Ant Colony Optimization, Particle Swarm Optimization and two variants of Genetic Algorithm. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time that Simulated Annealing has been applied to the problem. We use in the comparison a benchmark composed of 17 Java concurrent programs. We also compare the results of these algorithms with the ones of deterministic algorithms.Universidad de MĆ”laga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional AndalucĆa Tech. This research has been partially funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and FEDER under contract TIN2008-06491-C04-01 (the Mā project) and the Andalusian Government under contract P07-TIC-03044 (DIRICOM project)
An Object-Oriented Framework for Explicit-State Model Checking
This paper presents a conceptual architecture for an object-oriented framework to support the development of formal veriļ¬cation tools (i.e. model checkers). The objective of the architecture is to support the reuse of algorithms and to encourage a modular design of tools. The conceptual framework is accompanied by a C++ implementation which provides reusable algorithms for the simulation and veriļ¬cation of explicit-state models as well as a model representation for simple models based on guard-based process descriptions. The framework has been successfully used to develop a model checker for a subset of PROMELA
Recommended from our members
SPIN-ning Software Architectures: A Method for Exploring Complex Systems
When designing complex software systems that provide multiple non-functional properties, it is usual to try to reuse (and finally compose) simpler existing designs, which deal with each of these properties in solitude. The paper describes a method for automatically and quickly identifying all the different ways one can compose such designs, with the aid of a model checke
SAT-based Explicit LTL Reasoning
We present here a new explicit reasoning framework for linear temporal logic
(LTL), which is built on top of propositional satisfiability (SAT) solving. As
a proof-of-concept of this framework, we describe a new LTL satisfiability
tool, Aalta\_v2.0, which is built on top of the MiniSAT SAT solver. We test the
effectiveness of this approach by demonnstrating that Aalta\_v2.0 significantly
outperforms all existing LTL satisfiability solvers. Furthermore, we show that
the framework can be extended from propositional LTL to assertional LTL (where
we allow theory atoms), by replacing MiniSAT with the Z3 SMT solver, and
demonstrating that this can yield an exponential improvement in performance
On minimising the maximum expected verification time
Cyber Physical Systems (CPSs) consist of hardware and software components. To verify that the whole (i.e., software + hardware) system meets the given specifications, exhaustive simulation-based approaches (Hardware In the Loop Simulation, HILS) can be effectively used by first generating all relevant simulation scenarios (i.e., sequences of disturbances) and then actually simulating all of them (verification phase). When considering the whole verification activity, we see that the above mentioned verification phase is repeated until no error is found. Accordingly, in order to minimise the time taken by the whole verification activity, in each verification phase we should, ideally, start by simulating scenarios witnessing errors (counterexamples). Of course, to know beforehand the set of such scenarios is not feasible. In this paper we show how to select scenarios so as to minimise the Worst Case Expected Verification Tim
Development of a framework for automated systematic testing of safety-critical embedded systems
āThis material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work. Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder." āCopyright IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted component of this work in other works must be obtained from the IEEE.āIn this paper we introduce the development of a framework for testing safety-critical embedded systems based on the concepts of model-based testing. In model-based testing the test cases are derived from a model of the system under test. In our approach the model is an automaton model that is automatically extracted from the C-source code of the system under test. Beside random test data generation the test case generation uses formal methods, in detail model checking techniques. To find appropriate test cases we use the requirements defined in the system specification. To cover further execution paths we developed an additional, to our best knowledge, novel method based on special structural coverage criteria. We present preliminary results on the model extraction using a concrete industrial case study from the automotive domain
- ā¦