Advertisement

Formal Methods in Industrial Practice - Bridging the Gap (Track Summary)

  • Michael Felderer
  • Dilian Gurov
  • Marieke HuismanEmail author
  • Björn Lisper
  • Rupert Schlick
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11247)

Abstract

Already for many decades, formal methods are considered to be the way forward to help the software industry to make more reliable and trustworthy software. However, despite this strong belief, and many individual success stories, no real change in industrial software development seems to happen. In fact, the software industry is moving fast forward itself, and the gap between what formal methods can achieve, and the daily software development practice does not seem to get smaller (and might even be growing).

References

  1. 1.
    Alzuhaibi, O., Mooij, A., van Wezep, H., Groote, J.F.: Pitfalls upon applying model learning to industrial legacy software. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 121–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bardin, S., Kosmatov, N., Marre, B., Mentré, D., Williams, N.: Test case generation with PathCrawler/LTest: how to automate an industrial testing process. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 104–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bicarregui, J., et al.: Formal methods into practice: case studies in the application of the B method. IEE Proc.-Softw. 144(2), 119–133 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bolignano, D., Plateau, F.: Security filters for IoT domain isolation. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 194–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowen, J.P., Hinchey, M.G.: Ten commandments of formal methods. Computer 28(4), 56–63 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bowen, J.P., Hinchey, M.G.: Ten commandments revisited: a ten-year perspective on the industrial application of formal methods. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Formal Methods For Industrial Critical Systems, pp. 8–16. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Wing, J.M.: Formal methods: state of the art and future directions. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 28(4), 626–643 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cok, D.: Java automated deductive verification in practice: lessons from industrial proof-based projects. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 176–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, J.A., et al.: Study on the barriers to the industrial adoption of formal methods. In: Pecheur, C., Dierkes, M. (eds.) FMICS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8187, pp. 63–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41010-9_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garousi, V., Felderer, M.: Worlds apart: industrial and academic focus areas in software testing. IEEE Software 5, 38–45 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knüppel, A., Thüm, T., Padylla, C., Schaefer, I.: Scalability of deductive verification depends on method call treatment. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 159–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Larsen, K.G., Lorber, F., Nielsen, B.: 20 years of Uppaal enabled industrial model-based validation and beyond. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 212–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Agile IT: thinking in user-centric models. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2008. CCIS, vol. 17, pp. 490–502. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88479-8_35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nyberg, M., Gurov, D., Lidström, C., Rasmusson, A., Westman, J.: Formal verification in automotive industry: Enablers and obstacles. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 139–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peleska, J., Brauer, J., ling Huang, W.: Model-based testing for avionic systems proven benefits and further challenges. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 82–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schlick, R., Felderer, M., Majzik, I., Nardone, R., Raschke, A., Snook, C., Vittorini, V.: A proposal of an example and experiments repository to foster industrial adoption of formal methods. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 249–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Woodcock, J., Larsen, P.G., Bicarregui, J., Fitzgerald, J.: Formal methods: practice and experience. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 41(4), 19 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zakharov, I., Novikov, E.: Verification of operating system monolithic kernels without extensions. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 230–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Felderer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dilian Gurov
    • 3
  • Marieke Huisman
    • 4
    Email author
  • Björn Lisper
    • 5
  • Rupert Schlick
    • 6
  1. 1.University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Blekinge Institute of TechnologyKarlskronaSweden
  3. 3.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  4. 4.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Mälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden
  6. 6.AIT Austrian Institute of TechnologySeibersdorfAustria

Personalised recommendations