Runtime Assertion Checking and Static Verification: Collaborative Partners

Maurica, Fonenantsoa; Cok, David R.; Signoles, Julien

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_6

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper, we have illustrated the benefits of using various formal verification techniques. Related to this, [10,28,32] demonstrate that a collaborative approach to verification, encompassing static verification and testing, is advantageous as it finds more errors and proves more properties than a single technique.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 92%

Integrating Formal Verification and Assurance: An Inspection Rover Case Study

Bourbouh

Farrell

Mavridou

et al. 2021

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The complexity and flexibility of autonomous robotic systems necessitates a range of distinct verification tools. This presents new challenges not only for design verification but also for assurance approaches. Combining the distinct formal verification tools, while maintaining sufficient formal coherence to provide compelling assurance evidence is difficult, often being abandoned for less formal approaches. In this paper we demonstrate, through a case study, how a variety of distinct formal techniques can be brought together in order to develop a justifiable assurance case. We use the AdvoCATE assurance case tool to guide our analyses and to integrate the artifacts from the formal methods that we use, namely: fret, cocosim and Event-B. While we present our methodology as applied to a specific Inspection Rover case study, we believe that this combination provides benefits in maintaining coherent formal links across development and assurance processes for a wide range of autonomous robotic systems.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 92%

Integrating Formal Verification and Assurance: An Inspection Rover Case Study

Bourbouh

Farrell

Mavridou

et al. 2021

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, RAC may be combined with other verification techniques, notably DV, in various ways [35,43], in particular when they are provided within a shared framework, such as Frama-C, OpenJML, Spark2014, Spec#, Why3, or GOSPEL. An usual combination with any static technique (typically, abstract interpretation, model checking, or DV) consists in discharging as many properties as possible statically, and relying on RAC to verify the remaining ones at runtime: it lowers the amount of effort and the level of expertise required by the static verifications, while reducing the runtime overheads induced by RAC.…”

Section: Using Runtime Assertion Checking In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

The e-ACSL perspective on runtime assertion checking

Signoles

2021

Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Workshop on Verification and mOnitoring at Runtime EXecution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Runtime Assertion Checking (RAC) is the discipline of verifying program assertions at runtime, i.e. when executing the code. Nowadays, RAC usually relies on Behavioral Interface Specification Languages (BISL) à la Eiffel for writing powerful code specifications. Since now more than 20 years, several works have studied RAC. Most of them have focused on BISL. Some others have also considered combinations of RAC with others techniques, e.g. deductive verification (DV). Very few tackle RAC as a verification technique that soundly generates efficient code from formal annotations. Here, we revisit these three RAC's research areas by emphasizing the works done in E-ACSL, which is both a BISL and a RAC tool for C code. We also compare it to others languages and tools.

show abstract

“…In Runtime Assertion Checking and Static Verification: Collaborative Partners [20], Fonenantsoa Maurica, David Cok, and Julien Signoles discuss how to achieve, on the architectural level, static and dynamic analysis systems featuring a narrow semantic gap as well as similar levels of sound and complete checking. They also describe designs and implementations that add new capabilities to runtime assertion checking, bringing it closer to the feature coverage of static verification.…”

Section: Topic 3: Putting Combinations Of Static and Runtime Verificamentioning

confidence: 99%

A Broader View on Verification: From Static to Runtime and Back (Track Summary)

Ahrendt

Huisman

Reger

et al. 2018

Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When seeking to verify a computational system one can either view the system as a static description of possible behaviours or a dynamic collection of observed or actual behaviours. Historically, there have been clear differences between the two approaches in terms of their level of completeness, the associated costs, the kinds of specifications considered, how and when they are applied, and so on. Recently there has been a concentrated interest in the combination of static and runtime (dynamic) techniques and this track (taking place as part of ISoLA 2018) aims to explore this combination further.

show abstract

Runtime Assertion Checking and Static Verification: Collaborative Partners

Cited by 5 publications

References 27 publications

Integrating Formal Verification and Assurance: An Inspection Rover Case Study

Integrating Formal Verification and Assurance: An Inspection Rover Case Study

The e-ACSL perspective on runtime assertion checking

A Broader View on Verification: From Static to Runtime and Back (Track Summary)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About