Abstract Graph Transformation

Graphs may be used as representations of system states in operational semantics and model checking; in the latter context, they are being investigated as an alternative to bit vectors. The corresponding transitions are obtained as derivations from graph production rules. In this paper we propose an abstraction technique in this framework: the state graphs are contracted by collecting nodes that are sufficiently similar (resulting in smaller states and a finite state space) and the application of the graph production rules is lifted to this abstract level. Since graph abstractions and rule applications can all be computed completely automatically, we believe that this can be the core of a practically feasible technique for software model checking.

[1]  Arend Rensink.  The GROOVE Simulator: A Tool for State Space Generation , 2003, AGTIVE.

[2]  Patrick Cousot,et al.  Systematic design of program analysis frameworks , 1979, POPL.

[3]  Patrick Cousot,et al.  Refining Model Checking by Abstract Interpretation , 2004, Automated Software Engineering.

[4]  Reiko Heckel,et al.  Algebraic Approaches to Graph Transformation - Part I: Basic Concepts and Double Pushout Approach , 1997, Handbook of Graph Grammars.

[5]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Constructing Induction Rules for Deductive Synthesis Proofs , 2006, CLASE.

[6]  Joost-Pieter Katoen,et al.  Who is Pointing When to Whom? On the Automated Verification of Linked List Structures , 2004 .

[7]  Paolo Baldan,et al.  A Logic for Analyzing Abstractions of Graph Transformation Systems , 2003, SAS.

[8]  Agostino Cortesi,et al.  Distinctness and Sharing Domains for Static Analysis of Java Programs , 2001, ECOOP.

[9]  Reiko Heckel,et al.  Formal agent-oriented modeling with UML and graph transformation , 2002, Sci. Comput. Program..

[10]  John C. Reynolds,et al.  Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures , 2002, Proceedings 17th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[11]  Reinhard Wilhelm,et al.  Solving shape-analysis problems in languages with destructive updating , 1998, TOPL.

[12]  Joost-Pieter Katoen,et al.  Model Checking Birth and Death , 2002, IFIP TCS.

[13]  Fernando Luís Dotti,et al.  Verification of Distributed Object-Based Systems , 2003, FMOODS.

[14]  Reinhard Wilhelm,et al.  A semantics for procedure local heaps and its abstractions , 2005, POPL '05.

[15]  Reiko Heckel,et al.  Graph Grammars with Negative Application Conditions , 1996, Fundam. Informaticae.

[16]  Dániel Varró,et al.  Model Checking Graph Transformations: A Comparison of Two Approaches , 2004, ICGT.

[17]  Bertrand Jeannet,et al.  A Relational Approach to Interprocedural Shape Analysis , 2004, SAS.

[18]  Peter W. O'Hearn,et al.  Local Reasoning about Programs that Alter Data Structures , 2001, CSL.

[19]  Joost-Pieter Katoen,et al.  Who is Pointing When to Whom? , 2004, FSTTCS.

[20]  Martin Gogolla,et al.  An Integrated Semantics for UML Class, Object and State Diagrams Based on Graph Transformation , 2002, IFM.

[21]  Arend Rensink,et al.  Canonical Graph Shapes , 2004, ESOP.

[22]  Reinhard Wilhelm,et al.  Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic , 1999, POPL '99.

[23]  Arend Rensink.  State Space Abstraction using Shape Graphs , 2004 .

[24]  Hartmut Ehrig,et al.  Handbook of graph grammars and computing by graph transformation: vol. 3: concurrency, parallelism, and distribution , 1999 .