Constraint-Based Verification of Compositions in Safety-Critical Component-Based Systems

  • Nermin KajtazovicEmail author
  • Christopher Preschern
  • Andrea Höller
  • Christian Kreiner
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 569)


Component-based Software Engineering (CBSE) is currently a key paradigm used for building safety-critical systems. Because these systems have to undergo a rigorous development and qualification process, one of the main challenges of introducing CBSE in this area is to ensure the integrity of the overall system after building it from reusable components. Many (formal) approaches for verification of compositions have been proposed, and they generally focus on behavioural integrity of components and their data semantics. An important aspect of this verification is a trade-off between scalability and completeness.

In this paper, we present a novel approach for verification of compositions for safety-critical systems, based on data semantics of components. We describe the composition and underlying safety-related properties of components as a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) and perform the verification by solving that problem. We show that CSP can be successfully applied for verification of compositions for many types of properties. In our experimental setup we also show how the proposed verification scales with regard to size of different system configurations.


component-based systems safety-critical systems compositional verification constraint programming 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adler, R., Schaefer, I., Trapp, M., Poetzsch-Heffter, A.: Component-based modeling and verification of dynamic adaptation in safety-critical embedded systems. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 10(2), 20:1–20:39 (2011),, doi:10.1145/1880050.1880056
  2. de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface automata. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 26(5), 109–120 (2001),, doi:10.1145/503271.503226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apt, K.: Principles of Constraint Programming. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Basu, A., Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Combaz, J., Jaber, M., Nguyen, T.H., Sifakis, J.: Rigorous component-based system design using the bip framework. IEEE Software 28(3), 41–48 (2011), doi:10.1109/MS.2011.27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Nickovic, D., Passerone, R., Raclet, J.B., Reinkemeier, P., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A., Damm, W., Henzinger, T., Larsen, K. (2012) Contracts for Systems Design. Tech. rep., Research Report, Nr. 8147, Inria (November 2012)Google Scholar
  6. Butz, H.: (-) Open integrated modular avionic (ima): State of the art and future development road map at airbus deutschland. Department of Avionic Systems at Airbus Deutschland GmbH Kreetslag 10, D-21129 Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  7. choco Team, choco: an Open Source Java Constraint Programming Library. Research report 10-02-INFO, École des Mines de Nantes (2010)Google Scholar
  8. Earle, C.B., Gómez-Martínez, E., Tonetta, S., Puri, S., Mazzini, S., Gilbert, J.L., Hachet, O., Oliver, R.S., Ekelin, C., Zedda, K.: Languages for Safety-Certification Related Properties. In: Proc. Work in Progress Session at 39th Euromicro Conf. on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  9. COMPASS (2011-2014) Compass - comprehensive modelling for advanced systems of systems,
  10. Crnkovic, I.: Building Reliable Component-Based Software Systems. Artech House, Inc., Norwood (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Frey, P.: Case Study: Engine Control Application. Tech. rep., Ulmer Informatik-Berichte, Nr. 2010-03 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. Gössler, G., Sifakis, J.: Composition for component-based modeling. Sci. Comput. Program 55(1-3), 161–183 (2005),, doi:10.1016/j.scico.2004.05.014CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Kindel, O., Friedrich, M.: Softwareentwicklung mit AUTOSAR: Grundlagen, Engineering, Management in der Praxis. dpunkt Verlag; Auflage: 1 (Juni 8, 2009)Google Scholar
  14. Montano, G.: Dynamic reconfiguration of safety-critical systems: Automation and human involvement. PhD Thesis (2011)Google Scholar
  15. SAFECER (2011-2015) Safecer - safety certification of software-intensive systems with reusable components,
  16. Sentilles, S., Štěpán, P., Carlson, J., Crnković, I.: Integration of extra-functional properties in component models. In: Lewis, G.A., Poernomo, I., Hofmeister, C. (eds.) CBSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5582, pp. 173–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2009), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Sousa, M.: Data-type checking of iec61131-3 st and il applications. In: 2012 IEEE 17th Conference on Emerging Technologies Factory Automation (ETFA), pp. 1–8 (2012), doi:10.1109/ETFA.2012.6489534Google Scholar
  18. SPEEDS (2006-2012) Speculative and exploratory design in systems engineering - speeds,
  19. Sun, X., Nuzzo, P., Wu, C.C., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.: Contract-based system-level composition of analog circuits. In: 46th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, DAC 2009, pp. 605–610. Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  20. Tran, E.: Verification/validation/certification. Carnegie Mellon University, 18-849b Dependable Embedded Systems (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nermin Kajtazovic
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christopher Preschern
    • 1
  • Andrea Höller
    • 1
  • Christian Kreiner
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Technical InformaticsGraz University of TechnologyGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations