Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userMultiple Analyses, Requirements Once: simplifying testing & verification in automotive model-based development
102
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Philipp Berger
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic 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.
rate research
Read More
This paper attempts to address the question of how best to assure the correctness of saturation-based automated theorem provers using our experience developing the theorem prover Vampire. We describe the techniques we currently employ to ensure that Vampire is correct and use this to motivate future challenges that need to be addressed to make this process more straightforward and to achieve better correctness guarantees.
It is well-known that the verification of partial correctness properties of imperative programs can be reduced to the satisfiability problem for constrained Horn clauses (CHCs). However, state-of-the-art solvers for CHCs (CHC solvers) based on predicate abstraction are sometimes unable to verify satisfiability because they look for models that are definable in a given class A of constraints, called A-definable models. We introduce a transformation technique, called Predicate Pairing (PP), which is able, in many interesting cases, to transform a set of clauses into an equisatisfiable set whose satisfiability can be proved by finding an A-definable model, and hence can be effectively verified by CHC solvers. We prove that, under very general conditions on A, the unfold/fold transformation rules preserve the existence of an A-definable model, i.e., if the original clauses have an A-definable model, then the transformed clauses have an A-definable model. The converse does not hold in general, and we provide suitable conditions under which the transformed clauses have an A-definable model iff the original ones have an A-definable model. Then, we present the PP strategy which guides the application of the transformation rules with the objective of deriving a set of clauses whose satisfiability can be proved by looking for A-definable models. PP introduces a new predicate defined by the conjunction of two predicates together with some constraints. We show through some examples that an A-definable model may exist for the new predicate even if it does not exist for its defining atomic conjuncts. We also present some case studies showing that PP plays a crucial role in the verification of relational properties of programs (e.g., program equivalence and non-interference). Finally, we perform an experimental evaluation to assess the effectiveness of PP in increasing the power of CHC solving.
By exploiting the increasing surface attack of systems, cyber-attacks can cause catastrophic events, such as, remotely disable safety mechanisms. This means that in order to avoid hazards, safety and security need to be integrated, exchanging information, such as, key hazards/threats, risk evaluations, mechanisms used. This white paper describes some steps towards this integration by using models. We start by identifying some key technical challenges. Then we demonstrate how models, such as Goal Structured Notation (GSN) for safety and Attack Defense Trees (ADT) for security, can address these challenges. In particular, (1) we demonstrate how to extract in an automated fashion security relevant information from safety assessments by translating GSN-Models into ADTs; (2) We show how security results can impact the confidence of safety assessments; (3) We propose a collaborative development process where safety and security assessments are built by incrementally taking into account safety and security analysis; (4) We describe how to carry out trade-off analysis in an automated fashion, such as identifying when safety and security arguments contradict each other and how to solve such contradictions. We conclude pointing out that these are the first steps towards a wide range of techniques to support Safety and Security Engineering. As a white paper, we avoid being too technical, preferring to illustrate features by using examples and thus being more accessible.
Relational verification is a technique that aims at proving properties that relate two different program fragments, or two different program runs. It has been shown that constrained Horn clauses (CHCs) can effectively be used for relational verification by applying a CHC transformation, called predicate pairing, which allows the CHC solver to infer relations among arguments of different predicates. In this paper we study how the effects of the predicate pairing transformation can be enhanced by using various abstract domains based on linear arithmetic (i.e., the domain of convex polyhedra and some of its subdomains) during the transformation. After presenting an algorithm for predicate pairing with abstraction, we report on the experiments we have performed on over a hundred relational verification problems by using various abstract domains. The experiments have been performed by using the VeriMAP transformation and verification system, together with the Parma Polyhedra Library (PPL) and the Z3 solver for CHCs.
We present an industrial case study that demonstrates the practicality and effectiveness of Symbolic Quick Error Detection (Symbolic QED) in detecting logic design flaws (logic bugs) during pre-silicon verification. Our study focuses on several microcontroller core designs (~1,800 flip-flops, ~70,000 logic gates) that have been extensively verified using an industrial verification flow and used for various commercial automotive products. The results of our study are as follows: 1. Symbolic QED detected all logic bugs in the designs that were detected by the industrial verification flow (which includes various flavors of simulation-based verification and formal verification). 2. Symbolic QED detected additional logic bugs that were not recorded as detected by the industrial verification flow. (These additional bugs were also perhaps detected by the industrial verification flow.) 3. Symbolic QED enables significant design productivity improvements: (a) 8X improved (i.e., reduced) verification effort for a new design (8 person-weeks for Symbolic QED vs. 17 person-months using the industrial verification flow). (b) 60X improved verification effort for subsequent designs (2 person-days for Symbolic QED vs. 4-7 person-months using the industrial verification flow). (c) Quick bug detection (runtime of 20 seconds or less), together with short counterexamples (10 or fewer instructions) for quick debug, using Symbolic QED.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
