Compositional Verification of Architectural Models

Cofer, Darren; Gacek, Andrew; Miller, Steven P.; Whalen, Michael W.; LaValley, Brian; Sha, Lui

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28891-3_13

Cited by 105 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More similar to the present paper, the work [13,14] presents tool support for verifying contracts refinement, which in essence corresponds to verifying completeness. Even more similar to the present paper, the work [16] describes tool support for verifying a hierarchical organization of contracts related to a system architecture model. Despite the similarities between [13,14,16] and the present paper, as previously mentioned in Sect.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Even more similar to the present paper, the work [16] describes tool support for verifying a hierarchical organization of contracts related to a system architecture model. Despite the similarities between [13,14,16] and the present paper, as previously mentioned in Sect. 1, while the tool support in [13,14,16] requires that contracts must be formally represented in the language linear-time temporal logic (LTL) [59], the tool support described in the present paper does not require that contracts are specified in formal representation; in fact, the present paper describes how explicit support can be provided when requirements are specified in semiformal representation.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…However, while the approach in the present paper is applicable for any type design flow, i.e., top-down, bottom-up, or anything in between, the approach in [3] requires using model transformations for driving development and is therefore only applicable for a top-down design flow. In contrast to the present paper, but similar to the previously mentioned contract-based approaches [13,14,16], the support in [3,28] relies on formal representations of architectures and requirements. The work in [2] describes a formal modelbased development methodology using requirements refinement.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The present paper capitalizes on this fact by considering the support that can be provided for tasks (I)-(IV) by having a tool that evaluates these formal contract conditions. Notably, there already exist approaches such as [13,14,16] where formal contract conditions are evaluated in tools. However, the tool support in these approaches is dependent on that contracts must be formally represented in the language linear-time temporal logic (LTL) [59].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Providing tool support for specifying safety-critical systems by enforcing syntactic contract conditions

Westman

Nyberg

2017

Requirements Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional safety standards such as IEC 61508 and ISO 26262 advocate a particularly stringent requirements engineering where safety requirements must be structured in a hierarchical manner and specified in accordance with the system architecture. In contrast to the stringent requirements engineering in functional safety standards, according to previous studies, requirements engineering in industry is in general of poor quality. Contracts theory has been previously shown to be suitable for supporting such a stringent requirements engineering effort; this support has also been implemented in tools. However, to use these contract-based tools, requirements must be formalized, which is a major challenge in industry. Therefore, to support current industrial requirements engineering practice and the stringent requirements engineering in functional safety standards, it is shown how tool support can be provided even when requirements, and also architectures, are not formalized. This is achieved by enforcing syntactic, yet formal, conditions in contracts theory. Despite the need for further validation, initial findings in an industrial case study indicate high potential in realizing the proposed support in an industrial setting.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Providing tool support for specifying safety-critical systems by enforcing syntactic contract conditions

Westman

Nyberg

2017

Requirements Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To perform compositional verification of the GPCA, we used AGREE (Assume Guarantee Reasoning Environment) -a compositional verification framework developed for AADL verification [2]. AGREE is based on assume-guarantee reasoning [13], that provides an appropriate mechanism for formally capturing the component requirements, and assumptions to verify system requirements.…”

Section: Compositional Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Requirements to Code: Model Based Development of a Medical Cyber Physical System

Murugesan

Heimdahl

Whalen

et al. 2017

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advanced use of technology in medical devices has improved the way health care is delivered to patients. Unfortunately, the increased complexity of modern medical devices poses challenges for development, assurance, and regulatory approval. In an e ort to improve the safety of advanced medical devices, organizations such as FDA have supported exploration of techniques to aid in the development and regulatory approval of such systems. In an ongoing research project, our aim is to provide effective development techniques and exemplars of system development artifacts that demonstrate state of the art development techniques.In this paper we present an end-to-end model-based approach to medical device software development along with the artifacts created in the process. While outlining the approach, we also describe our experiences, challenges, and lessons learned in the process of formulating and analyzing the requirements, modeling the system, formally verifying the models, generating code, and executing the generated code in the hardware for generic patient controlled analgesic infusion pump (GPCA). We believe that the development artifacts and techniques presented in this paper could serve as a generic reference to be used by researchers, practitioners, and authorities while developing and evaluating cyber physical medical devices. Abstract. The advanced use of technology in medical devices has improved the way health care is delivered to patients. Unfortunately, the increased complexity of modern medical devices poses challenges for development, assurance, and regulatory approval. In an effort to improve the safety of advanced medical devices, organizations such as FDA have supported exploration of techniques to aid in the development and regulatory approval of such systems. In an ongoing research project, our aim is to provide effective development techniques and exemplars of system development artifacts that demonstrate state of the art development techniques. In this paper we present an end-to-end model-based approach to medical device software development along with the artifacts created in the process. While outlining the approach, we also describe our experiences, challenges, and lessons learned in the process of formulating and analyzing the requirements, modeling the system, formally verifying the models, generating code, and executing the generated code in the hardware for generic patient controlled analgesic infusion pump (GPCA). We believe that the development artifacts and techniques presented in this paper could serve as a generic reference to be used by researchers, practitioners, and authorities while developing and evaluating cyber physical medical devices.

show abstract

Virtual Integration for Pattern-Based Contracts with the Kind2 Model Checker

Becker

2018

Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compositional Verification of Architectural Models

Cited by 105 publications

References 7 publications

Providing tool support for specifying safety-critical systems by enforcing syntactic contract conditions

Providing tool support for specifying safety-critical systems by enforcing syntactic contract conditions

From Requirements to Code: Model Based Development of a Medical Cyber Physical System

Virtual Integration for Pattern-Based Contracts with the Kind2 Model Checker

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About