Symbolic analysis for improving simulation coverage of Simulink/Stateflow models

Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, EMSOFT'08

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 89-98

  Alur, Rajeev ^a   Kanade, Aditya ^a   Ramesh, S ^b   Shashidhar, K C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b GM India Science Lab   (India)

Author keywords

Coverage; Hybrid systems; Simulations; Simulink; Stateflow

Indexed keywords

EMBEDDED SOFTWARE; HYBRID SYSTEMS; NUMERICAL METHODS;

COVERAGE; DISCRETE COMPONENTS; DISCRETE-TIME SIMULATION; EMBEDDED CONTROL SOFTWARE; SIMULATIONS; SIMULINK; STATEFLOW; SYMBOLIC ANALYSIS;

EMBEDDED SYSTEMS;

EID: 70349257542     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1450058.1450071     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. Simulink demos: http://www.mathworks.com/products/simulink/demos.html.
2. Simulink models of hybrid systems benchmarks http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/ ~ansgar/benchmark/.
3. A. Agrawal, G. Simon, and G. Karsai. Semantic translation of Simulink/Stateflow models to hybrid automata using graph transformations. ENTCS, 109:43-56, 2004.
4. R. Alur, C. Courcoubetis, N. Halbwachs, T.A. Henzinger, P. Ho, X. Nicollin, A. Olivero, J. Sifakis, and S. Yovine. The algorithmic analysis of hybrid systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 138:3-34, 1995.
5. R. Alur, T. Dang, and F. Ivancic. Predicate abstraction for reachability analysis of hybrid systems. ACM Trans. on Embedded Computing Systems, 5(1):152-199, 2006.
6. R. Bagnara, P. M. Hill, and E. Zaffanella. The Parma Polyhedra Library: Toward a complete set of numerical abstractions for the analysis and verification of hardware and software systems. Science of Computer Programming, 2008.
7. C. Banphawatthanarak, B.H. Krogh, and K. Butts. Symbolic verification of executable control specifications. In Intl. Symp. on Computer Aided Control System Design, pages 581-586. IEEE, 1999.
8. BEACON Tester, Applied Dynamics International. http://www.adi.com/ products-be-bss-te.htm.
9. A. Chutinan and B.K. Krogh. Verification of polyhedral-invariant hybrid automata using polygonal flow pipe approximations. In HSCC, LNCS 1569, pages 76-90. Springer, 1999.
10. E.M. Clarke, A. Fehnker, Z. Han, B.H. Krogh, J. Ouaknine, O. Stursberg, and M. Theobald. Abstraction and counterexample-guided abstraction refinement in model checking of hybrid systems. Intl. Journ. on Foundations of Computer Science, 14(4):583-604, 2003.
11. A. Donzé and O. Maler. Systematic simulation using sensitivity analysis. In HSCC, LNCS 4416, pages 174-189. Springer, 2007.
12. A. Fehnker and F. Ivancic. Benchmarks for hybrid systems verification. In HSCC, LNCS 2993, pages 326-341. Springer, 2004.
13. G. Frehse. Phaver: Algorithmic verification of hybrid systems past HyTech. In HSCC, LNCS 3414, pages 258-273. Springer, 2005.
14. A.A. Gadkari, A. Yeolekar, J. Suresh, S. Ramesh, S. Mohalik, and K.C. Shashidhar. AutoMOTGen: Automatic model oriented test generator for embedded control systems. In CAV, LNCS 5123, pages 204-208. Springer, 2008.
15. A. Girard and G.J. Pappas. Approximation metrics for discrete and continuous systems. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, 52(5):782-798, 2007.
16. A. Girard and G.J. Pappas. Verification using simulation. In HSCC, LNCS 3927, pages 272-286. Springer, 2006.
17. P. Godefroid, N. Klarlund, and K. Sen. DART: Directed automated random testing. In PLDI, pages 213-223. ACM, 2005.
18. N. Halbwachs, Y. Proy, and P. Raymond. Verification of linear hybrid systems by means of convex approximations. In SAS, LNCS 864, pages 223-237. Springer, 1994.
19. G. Hamon. A denotational semantics for Stateflow. In EMSOFT, pages 164-172. ACM, 2005.
20. G. Hamon and J.M. Rushby. An operational semantics for stateflow. STTT, 9(5-6):447-456, 2007.
21. D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formulation for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8(3):231-274, 1987.
22. T.A. Henzinger, P. Ho, and H. Wong-Toi. HYTECH: a model checker for hybrid systems. STTT, 1, 1997.
23. A.A. Julius, G.E. Fainekos, M. Anand, I. Lee, and G.J. Pappas. Robust test generation and coverage for hybrid systems. In HSCC, LNCS 4416, pages 329-342. Springer, 2007.
24. A. Kurzhanski and P. Varaiya. Ellipsoidal techniques for reachability analysis. In HSCC, LNCS 1790, pages 202-214. Springer, 2000.
25. E.A. Lee. What's ahead for embedded software. IEEE Computer, pages 18-26, September 2000.
26. I. Mitchell and C. Tomlin. Level set methods for computation in hybrid systems. In HSCC, LNCS 1790, pages 310-323. Springer, 2000.
27. T. Nahhal and T. Dang. Coverage for continuous and hybrid systems. In CAV, LNCS 4590, pages 449-462. Springer, 2007.
28. Reactis, Reactive Systems, Inc., http://www.reactive-systems.com.
29. S. Sankaranarayanan, T. Dang, and F. Ivancic. Symbolic model checking of hybrid systems using template polyhedra. In TACAS, LNCS 4963, pages 188-202. Springer, 2008.
30. S. Sastry, J. Sztipanovits, R. Bajcsy, and H. Gill. Modeling and design of embedded software. Proc. of the IEEE, 91(1), 2003.
31. M. Satpathy, A. Yeolekar, and S. Ramesh. REDIRECT: Randomized directed testing for Simulink/Stateflow models. In EMSOFT (this proceedings). ACM, 2008.
32. Simulink Design Verifier, The Mathworks, Inc., http://www.mathworks.com/ products/sldesignverifier.
33. K. Sen, D. Marinov, and G. Agha. CUTE: a concolic unit testing engine for C. In FSE, pages 263-272. ACM, 2005.
34. Safety Test Builder, TNI-Software., http://www. tni-software.com/en/ produits/safetytestbuilder.
35. A. Tiwari. Abstractions for hybrid systems. Formal Methods in System Design, 32(1):57-83, 2008.
36. A. Tiwari. Formal semantics and analysis methods for Simulink Stateflow models. Technical report, SRI International, 2002.
37. S. Tripakis, C. Sofronis, P. Caspi, and A. Curic. Translating discrete-time Simulink to Lustre. ACM Trans. on Embedded Computing Systems, 4(4):779-818, 2005.
38. T-VEC Tester, T-VEC Technologies, Inc., http://www.t-vec.com/solutions/ simulink.php.