Dynamic Partial Order Reduction Using Probe Sets

Abstract

We present an algorithm for partial order reduction in the context of a countable universe of deterministic actions, of which finitely many are enabled at any given state. This means that the algorithm is suited for a setting in which resources, such as processes or objects, are dynamically created and destroyed, without an a priori bound. The algorithm relies on abstract enabling and disabling relations among actions, rather than associated sets of concurrent processes. It works by selecting so-called probe sets at every state, and backtracking in case the probe is later discovered to have missed some possible continuation.We show that this improves the potential reduction with respect to persistent sets. We then instantiate the framework by assuming that states are essentially sets of entities (out of a countable universe) and actions test, delete and create such entities. Typical examples of systems that can be captured in this way are Petri nets and (more generally) graph transformation systems. We show that all the steps of the algorithm, including the estimation of the missed actions, can be effectively implemented for this setting. This work has been carried out in the context of the GROOVE project funded by the Dutch NWO (project number 612.000.314).

TransDPOR: A Novel Dynamic Partial-Order Reduction Technique for Testing Actor Programs

“…Both papers present an operational definition of the set of transitions to be explored from a state, and the presented algorithms are conceptually similar to that in [6]. Kastenberg and Rensink proposed a new DPOR which is based on probe sets for handling dynamic creation and destroying of processes and objects [15]. Probe sets relies on abstract enabling and disabling relations among actions, rather than associated sets of concurrent processes.…”

Stubborn Transaction Reduction

“…Dwyer et al [8] propose dynamic techniques for object-oriented programs. Completely dynamic approaches exist [12,33]. Recently, even optimal solutions were found [1,43,2].…”

Systematic testing of actor systems

“…In this case there is a chain B ∶∶ p → A ∶∶ q in which the reference a 1 does not occur. However a 1 is not temporarily stable since when executing t 3 followed by t 22 , it holds that h 2 (f) = a 1 . Hence the execution of t 21 would introduce q() in Q 1 .…”

“…Previous work from ours, dealing with DPOR algorithms, are the papers by Kastenberg and Rensink , Bruintjes , Lauterburg et al , and Simsa et al . In the work by Kastenberg and Rensink a DPOR algorithm that relies on the use of probe sets instead of persistent or sleep sets is presented. Differently from persistent sets that store concurrent processes, probe sets store abstract relations that encapsulate information about enabling and disabling processes.…”