Skip to main content

A Model-Checking Based Approach to Robustness Analysis of Procedures under Human-Made Faults

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 181))

Abstract

We propose a model-checking approach for analyzing the robustness of procedures that suffer from human-made faults. Many procedures executed by humans incorporate fault detection and recovery tasks to recover from human-made faults. Examining whether such recovery tasks work as expected is crucial for preserving the trust and reliability inherent in safety-critical domains. To achieve this, we used a type of fault-injection method that injects a set of human-made faults into a fault-free model of a given procedure; the fault set is selected according to Swain’s discrete action classification. We use a model checker to determine paths to error states within the model and its properties formalized via CCS and LTL. We show the effectiveness of our method by investigating the recoverability of a real-world procedure

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. IEC 61882:2001: Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies)– Application guide. IEC, Geneva (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Karamanolis, C.T., Giannakopoulou, D., Magee, J., Wheater, S.M.: Model checking of workflow schemas. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing, EDOC 2000, pp. 170–181. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fields, R.E.: Analysis of Erroneous Actions in the Design of Critical Systems. PhD thesis, University of York (January 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Formal Verification Group, School of Computing, University of UTAH: Murphi Model Checker, http://www.cs.utah.edu/formal_verification/Murphi

  6. Ezekiel, J., Lomuscio, A.: A methodology for automatic diagnosability analysis. In: Dong, J.S., Zhu, H. (eds.) ICFEM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6447, pp. 549–564. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Krishnan, P.: A semantic characterisation for faults in replicated systems. Theoretical Computer Science 128(1-2), 159–177 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Bernardeschi, C., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S.: Model checking fault tolerant systems. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 12(4), 251–275 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gnesi, S., Lenzini, G., Martinelli, F.: Logical specification and analysis of fault tolerant systems through partial model checking. In: Etalle, S., Mukhopadhyay, S., Roychoudhury, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Verification and Validation (SVV 2003), Mumbai, India. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 118, pp. 57–70. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Swain, A.D., Guttmann, H.E.: Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications. Draft Report NUREG/CR-1278, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, DC (May 1982)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River (1989)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Aalst, W.M.P., de Beer, H.T., van Dongen, B.F.: Process mining and verification of properties: An approach based on temporal logic. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3760, pp. 130–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. PRESYSTEMS Inc.: A model checker: NHK, http://www4.ocn.ne.jp/~presys/index_en.html

  14. Reason, J.: Human Error. Cambridge University Press (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lamport, L., Schneider, F.B.: The “Hoare Logic” of CSP, and all that. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) 6(2), 281–296 (1984)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Puhlmann, F.: Soundness verification of business processes specified in the pi-calculus. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 6–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Nagatou, N., Watanabe, T. (2014). A Model-Checking Based Approach to Robustness Analysis of Procedures under Human-Made Faults. In: Ouyang, C., Jung, JY. (eds) Asia Pacific Business Process Management. AP-BPM 2014. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 181. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08222-6_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08222-6_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08221-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08222-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics