Early Fault Detection in Industry Using Models at Various Abstraction Levels

  • Jozef Hooman
  • Arjan J. Mooij
  • Hans van Wezep
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7321)

Abstract

Most formal models that are used in the industry are close to the level of code, and often ready to be used for code generation. Formal models can also be analysed and verified in order to detect any faults. As the first formal models are often such code-level models, their analysis not only reveals a lot of detailed design faults, but also the more relevant conceptual faults in the design and the requirements. Our observations are based on our experiences in an industrial development project that uses a commercial tool for formal modelling, compositional verification, and code generation. In addition to the provided tool functionality, we have introduced formal techniques to detect conceptual faults during the earlier design and requirements phases. To this end we have made additional formal models, both for the requirements and for the early designs at various abstraction levels. We have analysed these models using simulation and interactive visualization, and we have compared them using refinement checking.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.R.: The B-book: assigning programs to meanings. Cambridge University Press, New York (1996)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Boberg, J.: Early fault detection with model-based testing. In: Proceedings of Erlang Workshop 2008, pp. 9–20. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    von Bochmann, G.: Using First-Order Logic to Reason about Submodule Construction. In: Lee, D., Lopes, A., Poetzsch-Heffter, A. (eds.) FMOODS/FORTE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5522, pp. 213–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broadfoot, G.H., Broadfoot, P.J.: Academia and industry meet: Some experiences of formal methods in practice. In: Proceedings of APSEC 2003, pp. 49–58 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ClearSy: Atelier B, http://www.atelierb.eu/en/
  7. 7.
    CSK Systems Corporation: VDMTools, http://www.vdmtools.jp/en/
  8. 8.
    Easterbrook, S.M., Lutz, R.R., Covington, R., Kelly, J., Ampo, Y., Hamilton, D.: Experiences using lightweight formal methods for requirements modeling. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(1), 4–14 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eindhoven University of Technology: Software/Hardware Engineering (SHE) - Parallel Object-Oriented Specification Language (POOSL), http://www.es.ele.tue.nl/poosl/
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Fitzgerald, J., Larsen, P.G., Mukherjee, P., Plat, N., Verhoef, M.: Validated Designs for Object-oriented Systems. Springer, New York (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fitzgerald, J.S., Larsen, P.G.: Balancing Insight and Effort: The Industrial Uptake of Formal Methods. In: Jones, C.B., Liu, Z., Woodcock, J. (eds.) Formal Methods and Hybrid Real-Time Systems. LNCS, vol. 4700, pp. 237–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd: FDR2, http://www.fsel.com/
  14. 14.
    Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd and Oxford University Computing Laboratory: Failures-Divergence Refinement – FDR2 User Manual, 9th edn. (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goga, N., Romijn, J.: Guiding Spin Simulation. In: Davies, J., Schulte, W., Barnett, M. (eds.) ICFEM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3308, pp. 176–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Groote, J.F., Osaiweran, A., Wesselius, J.H.: Analyzing the effects of formal methods on the development of industrial control software. In: Proceedings of ICSM 2011, pp. 467–472. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haghverdi, E., Ural, H.: Submodule construction from concurrent system specifications. Information & Software Technology 41(8), 499–506 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holzmann, G.J.: Early fault detection tools. Software - Concepts and Tools 17(2), 63–69 (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holzmann, G.J.: Formal Methods for Early Fault Detection. In: Jonsson, B., Parrow, J. (eds.) FTRTFT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1135, pp. 40–54. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hooman, J., Huis in ’t Veld, R., Schuts, M.: Experiences with a Compositional Model Checker in the Healthcare Domain. In: George, C. (ed.) FHIES 2011. LNCS, vol. 7151, pp. 93–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hopcroft, P.J., Broadfoot, G.H.: Combining the box structure development method and CSP for software development. ENTCS 128(6), 127–144 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Larsen, K.G., Xinxin, L.: Equation solving using modal transition systems. In: Proceedings of LICS 1990, pp. 108–117. IEEE Computer Society (1990)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li, L., Hooman, J., Voeten, J.: Connecting technical and non-technical views of system architectures. In: Proceedings of CPSCom 2010, pp. 592–599 (December 2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roscoe, A.W., Armstrong, P.J., Pragyesh: Local Search in Model Checking. In: Liu, Z., Ravn, A.P. (eds.) ATVA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5799, pp. 22–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roscoe, B.: Understanding Concurrent Systems. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ryan, P.Y.A., Schneider, S.A., Goldsmith, M.H., Lowe, G., Roscoe, A.W.: The Modelling and Analysis of Security Protocols: the CSP Approach. Pearson Education (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sun, J., Liu, Y., Dong, J.S.: Model checking CSP revisited: Introducing a process analysis toolkit. In: Proceedings of ISoLA 2008. CCIS, vol. 17, pp. 307–322. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Theelen, B.D., Florescu, O., Geilen, M., Huang, J., van der Putten, P.H.A., Voeten, J.: Software/hardware engineering with the parallel object-oriented specification language. In: Proceedings of MEMOCODE 2007, pp. 139–148. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verum Software Technologies: ASD:Suite, http://www.verum.com/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jozef Hooman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arjan J. Mooij
    • 2
  • Hans van Wezep
    • 3
  1. 1.Computing Science DepartmentRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Embedded Systems InstituteEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Interventional X-Ray DepartmentPhilips HealthcareBestThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations