Advertisement

Causality Analysis in Contract Violation

  • Gregor Gössler
  • Daniel Le Métayer
  • Jean-Baptiste Raclet
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6418)

Abstract

Establishing liabilities in component-based systems is a challenging task, as it requires to establish convincing evidence with respect to the occurrence of a fault, and the causality relation between the fault and a damage. The second issue is especially complex when several faults are detected and the impact of these faults on the occurrence of the failure has to be assessed. In this paper we propose a formal framework for reasoning about logical causality between contract violations.

Keywords

Object Recognition Causality Analysis Fault Tree Label Transition System Execution Trace 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Åkerholm, M., Carlson, J., Fredriksson, J., Hansson, H., Håkansson, J., Möller, A., Petterson, P., Tivoli, M.: The SAVE approach to component-based development of vehicular systems. The Journal of Systems and Software 80, 655–667 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.-C., Randell, B.: Fundamental concepts of computer system dependability. In: Proc. Workshop on Robot Dependability: Technological Challenge of Dependable Robots in Human Environments, pp. 21–22. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Ferrari, A., Mangeruca, L., Passerone, R., Sofronis, C.: Multiple viewpoint contract-based specification and design. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2007. LNCS, vol. 5382, pp. 200–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Besnard, P., Cordier, M.-O., Moinard, Y.: Configurations for inference between causal statements. In: Lang, J., Lin, F., Wang, J. (eds.) KSEM 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4092, pp. 292–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brandan-Briones, L., Lazovik, A., Dague, P.: Optimal observability for diagnosability. In: Proc. Principles of Diagnosis, DX 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Busnelli, F.D., Comand, G., Cousy, H., Dobbs, D.B., Dufwa, B., Faure, M.G., Gilead, I., Green, M.D., Kerameus, K.D., Koch, B.A., Koziol, H., Magnus, U., Martn-Casals, M., Sinde Monteiro, J.F., Morteau, O., Neethling, J., Horton Rogers, W.V., Spier, J., Tichy, L., Widmer, P.: Principles of European Tort Law. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cholvy, L., Cuppens, F., Saurel, C.: Towards a logical formalization of responsibility. In: Proc. ICAIL 1997, pp. 233–242. ACM Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fidge, C.J.: Timestamps in message-passing systems that preserve the partial ordering. In: Raymond, K. (ed.) Proc. ACSC 1988, pp. 56–66 (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gössler, G., Raclet, J.-B.: Modal contracts for component-based design. In: Proc. SEFM 2009, pp. 295–303. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ericson II., C.A.: Fault tree analysis – a history. In: Proc. System Safety Conf. (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lamport, L.: Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Communications of the ACM 21(7), 558–565 (1978)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Littlewood, B., Strigini, L.: Software reliability and dependability: a roadmap. In: Proc. ICSE 2000, pp. 175–188. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mattern, F.: Virtual time and global states of distributed systems. In: Cosnard, M. (ed.) Proc. Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Algorithms, pp. 215–226. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neumann, P.G.: Computer Related Risks. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papadopoulos, Y.: Model-based system monitoring and diagnosis of failures using statecharts and fault trees. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 81, 325–341 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Picardi, C., Bray, R., Cascio, F., Console, L., Dague, P., Dressler, O., Millet, D., Rhefus, B., Struss, P., Valle, C.: integrating diagnosis in the design of automotive systems. In: Proc. ECAI 2002, pp. 628–632. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Picardi, C., Console, L., Berger, F., Breeman, J., Kanakis, T., Moelands, J., Collas, S., Arbaretier, E., De Domenico, N., Girardelli, E., Dressler, O., Struss, P., Zilbermann, B.: AUTAS: a tool for supporting FMECA generation in aeronautic systems. In: Proc. ECAI 2004. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    von Bar, C.: Principles of European law, Non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another. Sellier (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang, S., Hélouët, L., Gazagnaire, T.: Logic-based diagnosis for distributed systems. In: CRC Press (ed.) Perspectives in Concurrency Theory: A Festschrift for P. S. Thiagarajan (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregor Gössler
    • 1
  • Daniel Le Métayer
    • 1
  • Jean-Baptiste Raclet
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIA GrenobleRhône-AlpesFrance
  2. 2.IRITToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations