Modeling correction activities in the context of verification strategies

Abstract

Correction activities (CAs), which can take the form of redesign, rework, or repair, are essential to system development. Whereas verification activities (VAs) provide information about the state of the system, CAs modify the state of the system to facilitate its correct operation. However, existing approaches to modeling and optimizing verification strategies take a simplistic approach to CAs. Specifically, CAs are modeled as an expected cost to achieve a desired confidence level after a VA has failed and are inherent to such VAs. In this paper, we present a modeling paradigm based on Bayesian networks (BNs) that captures the effects of different types of CAs. This modeling paradigm allows for the integration of verification and correction decisions (CDs) under a common framework. The modeling paradigm is illustrated in the notional case of a communication system.

A Mathematical Approach to Design Verification Strategies That Incorporate Corrective Activities as Dedicated Decisions

“…Kulkarni et al [24] assumed that CAs always happen if the system is not in its ideal state. In response to this gap, the BN model of verification proposed in [18] was extended to model CAs [8]. This paper leverages such an extended model to integrate VAs and CAs as dedicated decisions in a verification planning problem.…”

“…CAs are defined as those activities that correct errors or defects that are found during system development [8]. In our previous study [8], uncertain evidence was leveraged to model the effects of CAs on the confidence of engineered systems. Three basic types of CAs were modeled with their uncertain evidence: rework, repair, and redesign.…”

“…While the paradigm of verification planning is extended with CAs, this extended paradigm shares the same purpose as previous paradigms: maximizing confidence on verification coverage, minimizing risk of undetected problems, and minimizing invested effort [8]. These three aspects can be assessed in terms of their inherent value with respect to satisfying the objective of the project.…”

“…This section leverages a notional satellite communication instrument in a satellite as a demonstrative case to validate our framework. The notional instrument has been used to support prior research in verification [8]. Consider that the instrument is formed by a Signal Generator, an Amplifier, and an Antenna, as depicted in Fig.…”

“…This simplification may undermine the value of the resulting verification strategies because of the potential suboptimality of CAs. In our previous work [8], a hybrid verification and correction framework was proposed to integrate CAs into verification strategies as dedicated decisions. The framework enables verification planning to be extended to include both VAs and CAs as a result of independent decisions.…”