Advertisement

Multiple Analyses, Requirements Once:

Simplifying Testing and Verification in Automotive Model-Based Development
  • Philipp BergerEmail author
  • Johanna Nellen
  • Joost-Pieter Katoen
  • Erika Ábrahám
  • Md Tawhid Bin Waez
  • Thomas Rambow
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11687)

Abstract

In industrial model-based development (MBD) frameworks, requirements are typically specified informally using textual descriptions. To enable the application of formal methods, these specifications need to be formalized in the input languages of all formal tools that should be applied to analyse the models at different development levels. In this paper we propose a unified approach for the computer-assisted formal specification of requirements and their fully automated translation into the specification languages of different verification tools. We consider a two-stage MBD scenario where first Simulink models are developed from which executable code is generated automatically. We (i) propose a specification language and a prototypical tool for the formal but still textual specification of requirements, (ii) show how these requirements can be translated automatically into the input languages of Simulink Design Verifier for verification of Simulink models and BTC EmbeddedValidator for source code verification, and (iii) show how our unified framework enables besides automated formal verification also the automated generation of test cases.

References

  1. 1.
    Autili, M., Grunske, L., Lumpe, M., Pelliccione, P., Tang, A.: Aligning qualitative, real-time, and probabilistic property specification patterns using a structured English grammar. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 41(7), 620–638 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2015.2398877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger, P., Katoen, J.-P., Ábrahám, E., Waez, M.T.B., Rambow, T.: Verifying auto-generated C code from simulink. In: Havelund, K., Peleska, J., Roscoe, B., de Vink, E. (eds.) FM 2018. LNCS, vol. 10951, pp. 312–328. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95582-7_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer, D.: Software verification with validation of results. In: Legay, A., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10206, pp. 331–349. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bianculli, D., Ghezzi, C., Pautasso, C., Senti, P.: Specification patterns from research to industry: a case study in service-based applications. In: Proceedings of ICSE, pp. 968–976. IEEE (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2012.6227125
  5. 5.
    Botham, J., et al.: PICASSOS - Practical applications of automated formal methods to safety related automotive systems. In: SAE Technical Paper. SAE International (2017).  https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0063
  6. 6.
    Bozzano, M., Cimatti, A., Katoen, J., Nguyen, V.Y., Noll, T., Roveri, M.: Safety, dependability and performance analysis of extended AADL models. Comput. J. 54(5), 754–775 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxq024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of ICSE, pp. 411–420. ACM (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1145/302405.302672
  8. 8.
    Filipovikj, P., Jagerfield, T., Nyberg, M., Rodriguez-Navas, G., Seceleanu, C.: Integrating pattern-based formal requirements specification in an industrial tool-chain. In: Proceedings of COMPSAC, pp. 167–173. IEEE (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2016.140
  9. 9.
    Filipovikj, P., Nyberg, M., Rodriguez-Navas, G.: Reassessing the pattern-based approach for formalizing requirements in the automotive domain. In: Proceedings of RE, pp. 444–450. IEEE (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2014.6912296
  10. 10.
    Grunske, L.: Specification patterns for probabilistic quality properties. In: Proceedings of ICSE, pp. 31–40. ACM (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1368088.1368094
  11. 11.
    Guglielmo, L.D., Fummi, F., Orlandi, N., Pravadelli, G.: DDPSL: an easy way of defining properties. In: Proceedings of ICCD, pp. 468–473. IEEE (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCD.2010.5647654
  12. 12.
    Heizmann, M., Hoenicke, J., Podelski, A.: Software model checking for people who love automata. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 36–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO Central Secretary: Road vehicles - Functional safety. Standard ISO 26262–1:2011. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2011). https://www.iso.org/standard/62711.html
  14. 14.
    Konrad, S., Cheng, B.H.C.: Real-time specification patterns. In: Proceedings of ICSE, pp. 372–381. ACM (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1062455.1062526
  15. 15.
    Koymans, R.: Specifying real-time properties with metric temporal logic. Real-Time Syst. 2(4), 255–299 (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01995674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu, S., Wang, X., Miao, W.: Supporting requirements analysis using pattern-based formal specification construction. In: Butler, M., Conchon, S., Zaïdi, F. (eds.) ICFEM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9407, pp. 100–115. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25423-4_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lumpe, M., Meedeniya, I., Grunske, L.: PSPWizard: machine-assisted definition of temporal logical properties with specification patterns. In: Proceedings of SIGSOFT/FSE, pp. 468–471. ACM (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2025113.2025193
  18. 18.
    Mahmud, N., Seceleanu, C., Ljungkrantz, O.: Resa tool: structured requirements specification and sat-based consistency-checking. In: FedCSIS, pp. 1737–1746 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moitra, A., et al.: Towards development of complete and conflict-free requirements. In: RE, pp. 286–296. IEEE Computer Society (2018)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nellen, J., Rambow, T., Waez, M.T.B., Ábrahám, E., Katoen, J.-P.: Formal verification of automotive simulink controller models: empirical technical challenges, evaluation and recommendations. In: Havelund, K., Peleska, J., Roscoe, B., de Vink, E. (eds.) FM 2018. LNCS, vol. 10951, pp. 382–398. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95582-7_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Remenska, D., Willemse, T.A.C., Templon, J., Verstoep, K., Bal, H.: Property specification made easy: harnessing the power of model checking in UML designs. In: Ábrahám, E., Palamidessi, C. (eds.) FORTE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8461, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43613-4_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith, R.L., Avrunin, G.S., Clarke, L.A., Osterweil, L.J.: PROPEL: an approach supporting property elucidation. In: Proceedings of ICSE, pp. 11–21. IEEE (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2002.1007952
  23. 23.
    Teige, T., Bienmüller, T., Holberg, H.J.: Universal pattern - Formalization, testing, coverage, verification, and test case generation for safety-critical requirements. In: Proceedings of MBMV (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Gibbons, J.: Property specifications for workflow modelling. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 56–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00255-7_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Berger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Johanna Nellen
    • 1
  • Joost-Pieter Katoen
    • 1
  • Erika Ábrahám
    • 1
  • Md Tawhid Bin Waez
    • 2
  • Thomas Rambow
    • 3
  1. 1.RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Ford Motor CompanyDearbornUSA
  3. 3.Ford Research and Innovation Center AachenAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations