Abstract
Safety Assurance Cases (ACs) are structured arguments which demonstrate that a system fulfills its safety requirements. However, the reasoning used in ACs is often presented informally and thus difficult to rigorously evaluate. To protect against the acceptance of ACs based on fallacious reasoning, our previous work has proposed a framework for formalizing fragments of ACs and verifying their reasoning using the Lean Theorem Prover. This work expands on the use of Lean to automatically validate fragments of ACs, identifies challenges faced by AC developers who wish the leverage theorem proving software, and demonstrates our approach to mitigating these challenges.
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.
Available at http://github.com/adisandro/MMINT.
References
Boomfield, R., Bishop, P.: Safety and assurance cases: past, present and possible future - an Adelard perspective. In: Proceedings of of SSS 2010. Springer, London (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-086-1_4
Cruanes, S., Hamon, G., Owre, S., Shankar, N.: Tool integration with the evidential tool bus. In: Giacobazzi, R., Berdine, J., Mastroeni, I. (eds.) VMCAI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7737, pp. 275–294. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35873-9_18
Denney, E., Pai, G.: Tool support for assurance case development. J. Autom. Softw. Eng. 25(3), 435–499 (2018)
Di Sandro, A., Selim, G.M.K., Salay, R., Viger, T., Chechik, M., Kokaly, S.: MMINT-A 2.0: tool support for the lifecycle of model-based safety artifacts. In: Proceedings of MODELS’20 Companion, pp. 15:1–15:5. ACM (2020)
Diskin, Z., Maibaum, T., Wassyng, A., Wynn-Williams, S., Lawford, M.: Assurance via model transformations and their hierarchical refinement. In: Proceedings of of MODELS 2018, pp. 426–436 (2018)
Dwyer, M., Avrunin, G., Corbett, J.: Property specification patterns for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Practice (1998)
Ebner, G., Ullrich, S., Roesch, J., Avigad, J., de Moura, L.: A metaprogramming framework for formal verification. In: Proceedings of ICFP 2017, pp. 1–29. ACM (2017)
Greenwell, W.S., Knight, J.C., Holloway, C.M., Pease, J.J.: A taxonomy of fallacies in system safety arguments. In: Proceedings of ISSC 2006 (2006)
GSN Working Group: GSN Community Standard Version 2 (2011). http://www.goalstructuringnotation.info/
Haddon-Cave, C.: The Nimrod review: an independent review into the broader issues surrounding the loss of the RAF Nimrod MR2 Aircraft XV230 (2009)
Keller, R.M.: Formal verification of parallel programs. Commun. ACM 19(7), 371–384 (1976)
Klein, G., et al.: seL4: formal verification of an OS Kernel. In: Proceedings of SOSP 2009, pp. 207–220 (2009)
Leroy, X.: A formally verified compiler back-end. J. Autom. Reason. 43(4), 363–446 (2009)
de Moura, L., Kong, S., Avigad, J., van Doorn, F., von Raumer, J.: The lean theorem prover (system description). In: Felty, A.P., Middeldorp, A. (eds.) CADE 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9195, pp. 378–388. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21401-6_26
Nemouchi, Y., Foster, S., Gleirscher, M., Kelly, T.: Isabelle/SACM: computer-assisted assurance cases with integrated formal methods. In: Ahrendt, W., Tapia Tarifa, S.L. (eds.) IFM 2019. LNCS, vol. 11918, pp. 379–398. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34968-4_21
Rushby, J.: Mechanized support for assurance case argumentation. In: Nakano, Y., Satoh, K., Bekki, D. (eds.) JSAI-isAI 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8417, pp. 304–318. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10061-6_20
Salay, R., Kokaly, S., Di Sandro, A., Fung, N.L.S., Chechik, M.: Heterogeneous megamodel management using collection operators. Softw. Syst. Model. 19(1), 231–260 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00738-9
Shahin, R., Kokaly, S., Chechik, M.: Towards certified analysis of software product line safety cases. In: Habli, I., Sujan, M., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2021. LNCS, vol. 12852, pp. 130–145. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83903-1_9
Viger, T., Murphy, L., Di Sandro, A., Shahin, R., Chechik, M.: A lean approach to building valid model-based safety arguments. In: Proceedings of MODELS 2021 (2021)
Viger, T., Salay, R., Selim, G., Chechik, M.: Just enough formality in assurance argument structures. In: Casimiro, A., Ortmeier, F., Bitsch, F., Ferreira, P. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2020. LNCS, vol. 12234, pp. 34–49. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54549-9_3
Wilson, S.P., Kelly, T.P., McDermid, J.A.: Safety case development: current practice, future prospects. In: Proceedings of SAFECOMP 1997, pp. 135–156. Springer, London (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0921-1_6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Murphy, L., Viger, T., Sandro, A.D., Shahin, R., Chechik, M. (2021). Validating Safety Arguments with Lean. In: Calinescu, R., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds) Software Engineering and Formal Methods. SEFM 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13085. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92124-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92124-8_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-92123-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-92124-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)