Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unit verification: the CARA experience

  • Special section: Analysis of requirements for a medical device – the computer-assisted resuscitation algorithm (CARA) experience
  • Published:
International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The computer-aided resuscitation algorithm, or CARA, is part of a US Army-developed automated infusion device for treating blood loss experienced by combatants injured on the battlefield. CARA is responsible for automatically stabilizing a patient’s blood pressure by infusing blood as needed based on blood pressure data the CARA system collects. The control part of the system is implemented in software, which is extremely safety critical and thus must perform correctly .

This paper describes a case study in which a verification tool, the Concurrency Workbench of the New Century (CWB-NC), is used to analyze a model of the CARA system. The huge state space of CARA makes it problematic to conduct traditional “push-button” automatic verification such as model checking. Instead, we develop a technique called unit verification, which entails taking small units of a system, putting them in a “verification harness” that exercises relevant executions appropriately within the unit, and then model checking these more tractable units. For systems like CARA whose requirements are localized to individual system components or interactions between small numbers of components, unit verification offers a means of coping with huge state spaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alpern B, Schneider F (1987) Recognizing safety and liveness. Distrib Comput 2(3):117–126

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Baeten JCM, Weijland WP (1990) Process algebra. Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science, vol 18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

  3. Bolognesi T, Brinksma E (1987) Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS. Comput Netw ISDN Sys 14:25–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheung SC, Kramer J (1996) Checking subsystem safety properties in compositional reachability analysis. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on software engineering, Berlin, March 1996, pp 144–154

  5. Cheung SC, Giannakopoulou D, Kramer J (1997) Verification of liveness properties using compositional reachability analysis. In: Proceedings of ESEC/FSE, Zurich, Switzerland, January 1997, pp 227–243

  6. Clarke EM, Grumberg O, Peled DA (2000) Model checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  7. Cleaveland R, Sims S (1996) The NCSU Concurrency Workbench. In: Alur R, Henzinger T (eds) Proceedings of the conference on computer aided verification (CAV ’96), New Brunswick, NJ, July 1996. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1102. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 394–397

  8. Cleaveland R, Sims S (2002) Generic tools for verifying concurrent systems. Sci Comput Programm 42(1):39–47

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Cleaveland R, Parrow J, Steffen B (1993) The Concurrency Workbench: a semantics-based tool for the verification of finite-state systems. ACM Trans Programm Lang Sys 15(1):36–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cleaveland R, Madelaine E, Sims S (1995) A front-end generator for verification tools. In: Brinksma E, Cleaveland R, Larsen KG, Steffen B (eds) Proceedings of the conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS ’95), Aarhus, Denmark, May 1995. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1019. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 153–173

  11. Elseaidy W, Cleaveland R, Baugh Jr JW (1997) Modeling and verifying active structural control systems. Sci Comput Programm 29(1–2):99–122

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fernandez J-C (1989/1990) An implementation of an efficient algorithm for bisimulation equivalence. Sci Comput Programm 13:219–236

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Hennessy MCB (1988) Algebraic theory of processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  14. Hoare CAR (1985) Communicating sequential processes. Prentice-Hall, London

  15. Kanellakis P, Smolka SA (1990) CCS expressions, finite state processes, and three problems of equivalence. Inf Comput 86(1):43–68

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Kozen D (1983) Results on the propositional μ-calculus. Theor Comput Sci 27(3):333–354

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Kupferman O, Vardi MY, Wolper P (2000) An automata-theoretic approach to branching-time model checking. J Assoc Comput Mach 47(2):312–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Linger R (1994) Cleanroom process model. IEEE Softw 11(2):50–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Manna Z, Pnueli A (1992) The temporal logic of reactive and concurrent systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  20. Manna Z and the STEP team (1995) Step: the Stanford temporal prover (educational release), user’s manual. Technical report STAN-CS-TR-95-1562, Stanford, CA

  21. Milner R (1989) Communication and concurrency. Prentice-Hall, London

  22. Moller F, Tofts C (1990) A temporal calculus of communicating systems. In: Proceedings of CONCUR’90, The Netherlands, August 1990, pp 401–415

  23. Paige R, Tarjan RE (1987) Three partition refinement algorithms. SIAM J Comput 16(6):973–989

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Pettersson P, Larsen KG, Yi W (1997) Uppaal in a nutshell. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer 1(1+2):134–152

    Google Scholar 

  25. Plotkin GD (1981) A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI-FN-19, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

  26. Pnueli A (1977) The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th annual symposium on foundations of computer science, Providence, RI, October/November 1977. IEEE Press, New York, pp 46–57

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-4400, USA

    Arnab Ray & Rance Cleaveland

Authors
  1. Arnab Ray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rance Cleaveland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rance Cleaveland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ray, A., Cleaveland, R. Unit verification: the CARA experience. STTT 5, 351–369 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-003-0134-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-003-0134-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation