Abstract
The vast majority of cyber-physical and embedded systems today is deployed without being fully formally verified during their design. Postponing verification until after deployment is a possible way to cope with this, as the verification process can benefit from instantiating operating parameters which were unknown at design time. But there exist many interesting alternatives between early verification (at design time) and late verification (at runtime). Moreover, this decision also has an impact on the specification style. Using a case study of the safety properties of an access control system, this paper explores the implications of different points in time chosen for verification, and points out the respective benefits and trade-offs. Further, we sketch some general rules to govern the decision when to verify a system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The case study only uses block definition diagrams.
- 2.
References
IEEE: IEEE std 1012–2016. IEEE standard for software verification and validation. Technical report. IEEE (2016)
Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: A brief account of runtime verification. J. Log. Algebraic Program. 78(5), 293–303 (2009)
Lüth, C., Ring, M., Drechsler, R.: Towards a methodology for self-verification. In: 2017 6th International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (Trends and Future Directions) (ICRITO), 11–15 September 2017 (2017)
Ring, M., Bornebusch, F., Lüth, C., Wille, R., Drechsler, R.: Better late than never – verification of embedded systems after deployment. In: 2019 Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE), pp. 890–895, March 2019
Abrial, J.R.: System study: method and example (1999)
OMG: Systems Modeling Language (SysML), Version 1.5, May 2017
OMG: Object Constraint Language (OCL), Version 2.4, February 2014
Gogolla, M., Richters, M.: Development of UML descriptions with USE. In: Shafazand, H., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) EurAsia-ICT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2510, pp. 228–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36087-5_27
Baaij, C., Kooijman, M., Kuper, J., Boeijink, W., Gerards, M.: ClaSH: structural descriptions of synchronous hardware using haskell. In: Proceedings of the 13th EUROMICRO Conference on Digital System Design: Architectures, Methods and Tools, United States, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 714–721, September 2010
Bornebusch, F., Wille, R., Drechsler, R.: Towards lightweight satisfiability solvers for self-verification. In: 7th International Symposium on Embedded Computing and System Design (ISED). IEEE (2017)
Ustaoglu, B., Huhn, S., Große, D., Drechsler, R.: SAT-lancer: a hardware SAT-solver for self-verification. In: 28th ACM Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI (GLVLSI) (2018)
Hejlsberg, A.: Typescript (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ring, M., Lüth, C. (2019). Let’s Prove It Later—Verification at Different Points in Time. In: Ölveczky, P., Salaün, G. (eds) Software Engineering and Formal Methods. SEFM 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11724. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30446-1_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30446-1_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30445-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30446-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)